Skip to main content

Full text of "Thoughts On Pakistan"

See other formats



M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc., Barrister-at-Law 

Member of the R. T. C. 

Ex-Principal Government Law College, Bombay. 
Fellow, University of Bombay. 

More brain, O Lord, more brain / or we shall mar 
Utterly this fair garden we might win." 





' v-\ 
.Ptyblen^ or^the Rupee. 

^ *^Ht s^ 

Ev61uti6Dr*4lf Provincial Finance in British India* 

- >* *^*W 

Small HSjldtngs in India. 

7 Atfnihilation of Caste. 

Federation v/s* Freedom. 



As a token of my appreciation 
of bar goodness of heart, her 
nobility of mind and hr purity 
of character and also for the 
cool fortitude and readiness to 
suffer along with me which she 
showed in those friendless days 
of want and worries which fell 
to our lot. 

Printed by Kashiram Vishram Savadkar'af^h^Bharat Bhushan 
Printing Press, 57 Vincent Road, Dadar, Bombay 14 and 
Published by G. E. Murphy for Thacker and Company 
Limited, Rampart Row, Bombay. 



Prologue ... ... ... ' ... ... i fi 

INTRODUCTION ... ... ... ... i n 


CHAPTER I What does the League Demand ... 15 22 

CHAPTER II A Nation Calling for a Home ... 2333 

CHAPTER III Escape from Degradation ... ... 35 43 


CHAPTER IV Break-up of Unity ... ... 47 60 

CHAPTER V Weakening of the Defences ... ... 61 95 

CHAPTER VI Pakistan and Communal Peace ... 96 120 


CHAPTER VII Hindu Alternative to Pakistan ... 123190 

CHAPTER VIII Muslim Alternative to Pakista ... 191200 

CHAPTER IX Lessons from Abroad ... ... 200 217 


CHAPTER X Social Stagnation ... ... ... 221 224 

CHAPTER XI Communal Aggression ... ... 245 268 

CHAPTER XII National Frustration ... ... 269346 

Epilogue ... ... ... ... 347352 

APPENDICES ... ... ... ;.. 353380 



To the reader I may say that the report was submitted to the 
Executive Council of the I. L. P. in August last and is printed as it 
then stood. Owing to want of time I have not been able to make 
it as uptodate in some respects as I would have liked to do. But 
I am sure that such omissions are trivial and do not in the least 
detract from the value of the book such as it is. On the other hand 
I believe that the value of the book is greatly enhanced by the 
14 Appendices and 3 Maps which form an important accompani- 
ment to the book. I would beg of the reader to pay more attention 
to the solution of the issues raised and less to my skill or rather 
want ot it as a literary craftsman. Let him take to heart the warning 
which Carlyle gave to Englishmen of his generation. He said : 

The Genius of England no longer soars Sunward, world-defiant, 
like an Eagle through the storms, " mewing her mighty youth ", 

: the Genius of England much like a greedy Ostrich 

intent on provender and a whole skin ; with its Ostrich-head 

stuck into whatever sheltering Fallacy there may be, and so 

awaits the issue. The issue has been slow ; but it now seems to 
have been inevitable, No Ostrich, intent on gross terrene provender 
and sticking its head into Fallacies, but will be awakened 
one day in a terrible a posteriori manner if not otherwise ! Awake 
before it comes to that. Gods and men bid us awake ! The Voices 
of our Fathers, with thousandfold stern monition to one and all, bid 
us awake." 

This warning, I am convinced, applies to Indians in their 
present circumstances as it once did to Englishmen and Indians, if 
they pay no heed to it, will do so at then peril. 

Now a word for those who have helped me in the preparation of 
this Report. In this I have been assisted by Mr. M. G. Tipnis, D.C.E., 
(Kalabhuwan, Baroda) and Mr. Chagganlal Modi, the former in 
preparing the maps and the latter in typing the manuscript. I wish 
to express my gratitude to both for their work which they have done 
purely as a labour of love. Thanks are also due in a special measure 
to my friends Mr. B. R. Kadrekar and Mr. K. V. Chitre for their 
labours in undertaking the most uninteresting and dull task of 

correcting the proofs and supervising the printing. 

~t -.f *"* - 

28th December 1940. 

'Rajagrah' B. R. Ambedfcar, 

* I>a<iar ? Bombay, 14. 


The Muslim League's Resolution on Pakistan has called forth 
different reactions. There are some who look upon it as a case of 
political measles to which a people in the infancy of their conscious unity 
and power are very liable. Others have taken it as a permanent frame 
of the Muslim mind and not merely as a passing phase and have in 
consequence been greatly perturbed. 

The question is undoubtedly controversial. The issue being vital 
there is nothing unusual if in the controversy raised by it a dispassionate 
student finds more stupification and less understanding, more heat and 
less light, more redicule and less seriousness. Some confess that this 
demand for partitioning India into two political entities with separate 
national interests staggers their imagination, others are so choked with 
a sense of righteous indignation at this wanton attempt to break the unity 
of a country, which it is claimed has stood as one for centuries, that their 
rage prevents them from giving expression to their thoughts. Others 
think that it need not be taken seriously* They treat it as a trifle and 
try to destroy it by shooting into it similies and metaphors. "You don't 
cut your head to cure your headache/' "you don't cut a baby into two 
because two women are engaged in fighting out a claim as to who its 
mother is/' are some of the metaphors which are used to prove the 
absufdity of Pakistan. 

Mv position in this behalf is definite if not singular. I do not 
think the demand for Pakistan is the result of mere political distemper, 
which will pass away with efflux of time. As I read the situation it seems 
to me that it is a characteristic in the biological sense of tbe term which 
the Muslim body politic has developed in the same manner as an organism 
develops a characteristic* Whether it will survive or not in tbe process 
c natural Rejection must depend upon the forces that may become 
in tbe straggle fix existence between Hindus ad MusaLmaqs, 

_ *nr**f , i ','-,' 


Secondly, I am not staggered by Pakistan ; I am not indignant about it ; nor 
do I believe that it can be smashed by shooting into it similies and meta- 
phors. Those who believe in shooting it by similies should remember 
that nonsense is nonetheless nonsense because it is in rhyme, and that 
a metaphor is no argument though it be sometimes the gunpowder to drive 
one home and imbed it in the memory. I believe that it would be 
neither wise nor possible to reject summarily a scheme if it has behind it 
the sentiment if not the passionate support of 90 p. c. Muslims of India. 
I have no doubt that the only proper attitude to Pakistan is to study it 
in all its aspects, to understand its implications and to form an intelligent 
judgment about it. 

With all this, a reader is sure to ask : Is this book on Pakistan 
seasonable in the sense that one must read it, as one must eat the fruits 
of the season to keep himself in health ? If it is seasonable, is it readable ? 
These are natural queries and an author, whose object is to attract 
readers, may well make use of the usual introduction to meet them. 

As to the seasonableness of the book there can be no doubt. 
The way of looking at India by Indians themselves must be admitted to 
have undergone a complete change during the last 20 years. Referring 
to India Prof. Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1915 : 

" British Statesmanship in the nineteenth century regarded India 
as ' Sleeping Beauty ', whom Britain had a prescriptive right to woo 
when she awoke ; so it hedged with thorns the garden where she lay, to 
safeguard her from marauders prowling in the desert without. Now the 
princess is awake, and is claiming the right to dispose of her own 
hand, while the marauders have transformed themselves into 
respectable gentlemen diligently occupied in turning the desert into 
a garden too, but grievously impeded by the British thorn-hedge. 
When they politely request us to remove it, we shall do well to 
consent, for they will not make the demand till they feel them- 
selves strong enough to enforce it, and in the tussle that will 
follow if we refuse, the sympathies of the Indian princess will 
not be on our side. Now that she is awake, she wishes to -walk 
abroad among her neighbours; she feels herself capable of rebuffing 
without our countenance any blandishments or threats they may 
offer her, and she is becoming as weary as they of the thorn-hedge 
that confines her to her garden, 

" If we treat her with tact, India will never wish to secede from 
Brotherhood of ths British Empire, but it is inevitable 


that she should lead a more and more independent life of her own, 
and follow the example of Anglo-Saxon Commonwealths by 
establishing direct relations with her neighbours.../' 

Although the writer is an Englishman, the view expressed by him 
in 1915 was the view commonly held by all Indians irrespective of caste 
or creed. Now that India the " Sleeping Beauty " of Prof. Toynbee is 
awake, what is the view of the Indians about her ? On this question 
there can be no manner of doubt that those, who have observed this 
Sleeping Beauty behave in recent years, feel she is a strange being quite 
different from the angelic Princess that she was supposed to be. She is 
a mad maiden having a dual per Jbnality, half human, half animal, always 
in convulsions because of her two natures in perpetual conflict. If there 
is any doubt about her dual personality it has now been dispelled by the 
Resolution of the Muslim League demanding the cutting up of India into 
two,* Pakistan and Hindustan, so that these conflicts and convulsions due 
to a dual personality being bound in one may cease for ever, and so freed 
from each other, may dwell in separate homes congenial to their 
respective Hindu and Muslim cultures. 

It is beyond question that Pakistan is a scheme which will have to be 
taken into account. The Muslims will insist upon the scheme being 
considered. The British will insist upon some kind of settlement being 
reached between the Hindus and Muslims before they consent to any 
devolution of political power. There is no use blaming the British for 
insisting upon such a settlement as a condition precedent to transfer of 
power. The British cannot consent to settle power upon an aggressive 
Hindu majority and make it its heir, leaving it to deal with the minorities 
at its sweet pleasure. That would not be ending imperialism. It would 
be creating another imperialism. The Hindus therefore cannot avoid 
coming to grips with Pakistan much as they would like to do. 

If the scheme of Pakistan has to be considered, and there is no 
escape from it, then there are certain points which must be borne in 

The first point to note is that the Hindus and Muslims must 
decide the question themselves. They cannot invoke the aid of any one 
else. Certainly they cannot expect the British to decide it for them. 
From the point of view of the Empire it matters very little to the British 
whether India remains one undivided whole, or is partitioned into two 
divisions, Pakistan and Hindustan, or into twenty linguistic fragments as 


planned by the Congress, so long as ali of them are content to live 
within the Empire* The British need not interfere for the simple reason 
that they are not affected by such territorial divisions* 

Further if the Hindus are hoping that the British will use force to 
put down Pakistan, that is impossible. In the first place coercion is 
no remedy. The futility of force and resistance was pointed out by 
Burke long ago in his speeches relating to coercion of the American 
Colonies. His memorable words may be quoted not Oiljy for the 
benefit of the Hindu Mahasabha but for the benefit of all. This is what 
he said : 

"The use of force alone is temporary. It may endure a moment 
but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again : a nation 
is not governed which is perpetually to be conquerred. The next 
objection to force is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the 
effect of force, and an armament is not a victory. If you do not 
succeed you are without resource ; for conciliation failing, force 
remains; but force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. 
Power and Authority are sometimes bought by kindness, but they 
can never be begged as alms by an impoverished and defeated 
violence. A further objection to force is that you impair the 
object by your very endeavours to preserve it. The thing you 
fought for ( to wit the loyalty of the people ) is not the thing 
you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in 
the contest". 
Coercion, as an alternative to Pakistan, is therefore unthinkable. 

Again the Muslims cannot be deprived of the benefit of the 
principle of self-determination. The Hindu Nationalists, who rely on self- 
determination and ask how Britain can refuse India what the conscience 
of the world has conceded to the smallest of the European nations, cannot 
in the same breath ask the British to deny it to other minorities. The 
Hindu Nationalist, who hopes that Britain will coerce the Muslims 
into abandoning Pakistan, forgets that the right of nationalism to freedom 
from an aggressive foreign imperialsim and the right of a minority to 
freedom from an aggressive majority's nationalism are not two different 
things; near does the former stand on a more sacred footing than the 
latter. They are merely two aspects of the struggle for freedom and as 
such equal ia their moral import Nationalists, fighting for freedom from 

capoot w4l ask the Jb% ctf the British 

to thwart the right of a minority > to freedom from the nationalism of . 

an aggressive majority. The matter must therefore be decided upon by 
the Muslims and the Hindus alone. The British cannot decide the issue 
for them- This is the first important point to note. 

The essence of Pakistan is the opposition to the establishment of 
one Central Government having supremacy over the whole of India.] 
Pakistan contemplates two Central Governments, one for Pakistan "knd 
another for Hindustan. This gives rise to the second important point 
which Indians must take note of. That point is that the issue of Pakistan 
shall have to be decided upon before the plans for a new constitution 
are drawn and its foundations are laid. If there is to be one Central 
Government for India the design of the constitutional structure would be 
different from what it would be if there is to be one Central Government 
for Hindustan and another for Pakistan. That being so, it will be most 
unwise to postpone the decision. Either the scheme should be abandoned 
and another substituted by mutual agreement or it should be decided 
upon. It will be the greatest folly to suppose that if Pakistan is buried 
for the moment it will never raise its head again. I am sure, burying 
Pakistan is not the same thing as burying the ghost of Pakistan. So 
long as the hostility to one Central Government for India, which is the 
ideology underlying Pakistan, persists the ghost of Pakistan will be there 
casting its ominous shadow upon the political future of India, Neither 
will it be prudent to make some kind of a make-shift arrangement for 
the time being leaving the permanent solution to some future day. To 
do so would be something like curing the symptoms without removing 
the disease. But as it often happens in such cases, the disease is driven 
in, thereby making certain its recurrence, perhaps in a more virulent form. 

I feel certain that whether India should have one Central Govern- 
ment is not a matter which can be taken as settled ; it is a matter in 
issue and although it may not be a live issue now, some day it will be so. 

The Muslims have openly declared that they do not want to have 
any Central Government in India and they have given their reasons in 
most unambiguous terms. They have succeeded in bringing into being 5 
provinces which are predominently Muslim in population. In thes pro- 
vinces they see the possibility of Muslims forming a Government and 
they ate anxious to see that the independence of the Muslim Govensrae&ts* 
in these provinces is preserved. Ax*twsi*ed by these 
Central Government is an eye-sore to the Muslims of India, 


visualize the scene they see their Muslim Provinces made subject to 
a Central Government predominently Hindu and endowed with powers of 
supervision over and even of interference in, the administration of these 
Muslim Provinces. The Muslims feel that to accept one Central Govern- 
ment for the whole of India is to consent to place the Muslim Provincial 
Governments under a Hindu Central Government and to see the gain, 
secured by the creation of Muslim Provinces, lost by subjecting them to 
the Hindu Government at the Centre. The Muslim way of escape from 
this tyranny of a Hindu Centre is to have no Central Government in 
India at all.* 

But are the Mussulmans alone opposed to the existence of 
a Central Government ? What about the Hindus ? There seems to be 
a silent premise underlying all political discussions that are going on among 
the Hindus that there will always be in India a Central Government as 
a permanent part of her political constitution. How far such a premise 
can be taken for granted is more than I can say. But I may point out 
that there are two factors which are dormant for the present but which 
some day may become dominant and turn the Hindus away from the 
idea of a Central Government. 

First is the cultural antipathy between the Hindu Provinces. 
The Hindu Provinces are by no means a happy family. It cannot be 
pretended that the Sikhs have any tenderness for the Bengalees or the 
Rajputs for the Madrasis. The Bengalee loves only himself. The 
Madrasi is bound by his own world. As to the Maratha, who does not 
recall that the Marathas, who set out to destroy the Muslim Empire in 
India, became a menace to the rest of the Hindus whom they harassed 
and kept under their yoke for nearly a century ? The Hindu Provinces 
have no common traditions and no interests to bind them. On the other 
hand the differences of language, race, and the conflicts of the past have 
been the most powerful forces tending to divide them. It is true that the 
Hindus are getting together and the spirit moving them to become one 
united nation is working on them. But it must not be forgotten that they 
have not yet become a nation. They are in the process of becoming 
a nation and before the process is completed there may be a set-back 
which may destroy the work of a whole century. 

point of view wa put forth by Sir Mohamed Iqbal at the Third Bound 
Table Conference. 


In the second place there is the financial factor. It is not suffi- 
ciently known what is costing the people of India to maintain the Central 
.Government and the proportionate burden each Province has to bear. 

The total Revenue of British India comes to Rs. 1,94,64,17,926 
per annum. Of this sum the amount, raised by the Provincial Govern- 
ments from Provincial sources, comes annually to Rs. 73,57,50,125 and 
that raised by the Central Government from central sources of Revenue 
comes to Rs. 1,21,06,67,801. This will show what the Central Govern- 
ment costs the people of India. When one considers that the Central 
Government is concerned only with maintaining peace and does not 
discharge any functions which have relation to the progress of the people, 
it should cause no surprise if people begin to ask whether it is necessary 
that they should pay annually such an enormous price to purchase peace. 
In this connection it must be borne in mind that the people in the 
Provinces are literally starving and there is no source left to the Provinces 
to increase their revenue. 

This burden of maintaining the Central Government, which the 
people of India have to bear, is most unevenly distributed over the 
different Provinces. The sources of Central Revenues are (i) Customs, 
(2) Excise, (3) Salt, (4) Currency, (5) Post and Telegraph, (6) Income 
Tax and (7) Railways. It is not possible from the accounts published 
by the Government of India to work out the distribution of the three 
sources of central revenue, namely Currency, Post and Telegraph and 
Railways. Only the revenue raised from other sources can be so worked 
out Province by Province. The result is shown in the following table : 

Ke venue raised by Provincial 

Revenue raised by Central 


Government from Provincial 

Government from central 





1 Madras 



2 Bombay 



3 Bengal 



4 TJ.P. 


4,05 53,030 

5 Bihar 



6 C. P. & Berar 



7 Assam 

2,58,48,474 * 


8 Orissa 



9 Punjab 



10 N. W. F. - 


9,28,294 \ 

11 Bind 




It ivill be seen from this table that the burden of maintaining the 
Central Government is not only heavy but fells unequally upon the different 
Provinces. The Bombay Provincial Government raises Rs. 12,44,59,553 ; 
as against this the Central Government raises Rs. 22,5344,247 
from Bombay. The Bengal Government raises Rs. 12,76,60,892 ; as 
against this the Central Government raises Rs. 23,79,01,583 
from Bengal. The Sind Government raises Rs. 3,70,29,354 ; as against 
this the Central Government raises Rs. 5,66,46,915 from Sind. The 
Assam Government raises nearly Rs. 2^ crores ; but the Central Govern- 
ment raises nearly Rs. 2 crores from Assam. While such is the burden 
of the Central Government on these Provinces the rest of the Provinces 
contribute next to nothing to the Central Government. The Punjab 
raises Rs. n crores for itself but contributes only Rs. i crore to the 
Central Government. In the N. W. F. the Provincial Revenue is 
Rs. 1,80,83,548 ; its total contribution to the Central Government however 
is only Rs. 9,28,294. U. P. raises Rs. 13 crores but contributes only 
Rs. 4 crores to the Centre. Bihar collects Rs. 5 crores for itself; she 
gives only ij crores to the Centre. C. P. and Berar levy a total of 
4 crores and pay to the Centre 31 lakhs. 

This financial factor has so far passed without notice. But time 
may come when even to the Hindus, who are the strongest supporters 
of a Central Government in India, the financial considerations may make 
a greater appeal than what purely patriotic considerations do now. So it 
is possible that some day the Muslims for communal considerations and 
the Hindus for financial considerations may join hands to abolish the 
Central Government. 

If this were to happen it is better if it happens before the foundation 
of a new constitution is laid down. If it happens after the foundation of 
the new constitution, envisaging one Central Government, were laid down, 
it would be the greatest disaster. Out of the general wreck not only India 
as an entity will vanish, but it will not be possible to save even the Hindu 
unity. Because as I have pointed out there is not much cement even 
among the Hindu Provinces, and once that little cement which exists is 
lost, theape will be nothing with which to build up even the Hindu Unity. 
It is because of this that Indians must decide, before preparing the plans 
and laying the foundations, for whom the constitutional structure is to be 
raised and whether it is temporary or permanent After the structure is 


from one end to the other and if thereafter a part is to be severed from 
the rest, the knocking out of the rivets will shake the whole building 
and produce cracks in other parts of the structure which are intended 
to remain as one whole. The danger of cracks is greater if the 
cement which binds them is, as in the case of India, of a poor quality. 
If the new constitution is designed for India as one whole and a 
structure is raised on that basis and thereafter the question of separation 
of Pakistan from Hindustan is raised and the Hindus have to yield, the 
alterations that may become necessary to give effect to this severance 
may bring about the collapse of the whole structure. The desire of the 
Muslim Provinces may easily infect the Hindu Provinces and the spirit 
of disruption generated by the Muslim Provinces may cause all round 

History is not wanting in instances of disruption of constitutions 
after they were established. There is the instance of the Southern States 
of the American Union. Natal has always been anxious to get out from 
the Union of South Africa and Western Australia recently applied* 
though unsuccessfully, to secede from the Australian Commonwealth. 

In these cases actual disruption has not taken place and where it 
did it was soon healed. Indians however cannot draw comfort that 
fortune will show them the same good turn. In the first place it would 
be futile to entertain the hope that if a disruption of the Indian Constitution 
took place by the Muslim Provinces separating from the Hindu Provin- 
ces, it would be possible to win back the seceding provinces as was done 
in the U. S. A. after the Civil War. Secondly if the new Indian Con- 
stitution is a Dominion Constitution, even the British may find them- 
selves powerless to save the Constitution from such a disruption, if it 
takes place after its foundations are laid. It seems to be therefore 
imperative that the issue of Pakistan should be decided upon before the 
new Constitution is devised. 

If there can be no doubt that Pakistan is a scheme which Indians 
will have to resolve upon at the next revision of the Constitution and if 
there is no escape from deciding upon it then it, would be a fatal mistake 
if the people approached it without a proper understanding of the question. 
The ignorance of some of the Indian Delegates to the Round Table 
Conference of constitutional law, I remember, led Mr. Garvin of the Observer 
to remark that it would have been much better if the Simon Commission, 


instead of writing a report on India, had made a report on constitutional 
problems of India and how they were met by the constitution of the 
different countries of the world. Such a report I know was prepared for 
the use of the delegates who framed the Constitution of South Africa, 
This is an attempt to make good that deficiency and as such I believe it 
will be welcomed as a seasonable piece. 

I would deal with the second question namely whether the book is 
readable. Augustine Birrell has given a warning to all writers when he 
said | 

" Cooks, warriors, and authors must be judged by the effects they 
produce; toothsome dishes, glorious victories, pleasant books, these 
are our demands. We have nothing to do with ingredients, tactics, 
or methods. We have no desire to be admitted into the kitchen, 
the council, or the study. The cook may use her saucepans how she 
pleases, the warrior place his men as he likes the author handle his 
material or weave his plot as best he can, when the dish is served we 
only ask, Is it good ? when the battle has been fought, Who won ? 
when the book cornes out, Does it read ? 

" Authors ought not to be above being reminded that it is their 
first duty to write agreeably. Some very disagreeable men have 
succeeded in doing so, and there is therefore no need for any one to 
despair. Every author, be he grave or gay, should try to make 
his book as ingratiating as possible. Reading is not a duty, and 
has consequently no business to be made disagreeable. Nobody is 
under any obligation to read any other man's book. " 

I take note of the warning. But I am not worried about it. 
That may well apply to other books but not to a book on Pakistan. 
Every Indian must read a book on Pakistan, if not this, then some other, 
if he wants to help his country to stear a clear path. 

If my book does not read well, i.e.> its taste be not good, the reader 
will find two things in it which, I am sure, are good. 

First thing he will find is that the ingredients are good. There is 
in the book material which may be helpful and to gain access to which 
he will have to labour a great deal. Indeed the reader will find that the 
book contains an epitome of India's political and social history during 
tet twenty years which it is necessary for every Indian to know, 

IHbe second thing he will find is that there is no partisanship. The 
fe to ^ssposfc i&e 3cberte of Pakistan w all its aspects a**d not to 


advocate it/^The aim is to explain and not to convert. It wotild how- 
ever be an idle pretence for me to say that I have no views on Pakistan* 
Views I have. Some of them are expressed, others may have to be 
gathered. Two things however may well be said about my views. In 
the first place wherever they are expressed they have been reasoned 
out. Secondly, whatever die views, they have certainly not the fixity 
of a popular prejudice. They are really thoughts and not views* 
In other words I have an open mind, though not an empty mind. A 
person with an open mind is always the subject of congratulations. While 
this may be so, it must at the same time be realized that an open mind 
may also be an empty mind and that such an open mind, if it is a happy 
condition, it is also a very dangerous condition for a man to be in. A dis- 
aster may easily overtake a man with an empty mind. For such a person 
is like a ship without a ballast and without a rudder. It can have no direc- 
tion. It may float but may also a suffer shipwreck against a rock* for want 
of direction. While aiming to help the reader by placing before him all 
the material relevant and important, the reader will find that I have not 
sought to impose my views on him. I have placed before him both sides 
of the question and have left him to form his own opinion on it. 

The reader may complain that I have been provocative in stating 
the releveiit facts. I am conscious that such a charge may be levelled 
against me. I apologize freely and gladly for the same. My excuse is 
that I have no intention to hurt. I had only one purpose that is to 
force the attention of the indifferent and the casual reader upon the issue 
that is dealt with in the book. I ask the reader to put aside any irritation 
that he may feel with me and concentrate his thoughts on this tremendous 
issue : Which is to be, Pakistan or no Pakistan ? 


Tfie Muslim Case for Pakistan is sought to be justified on 
tJie following grounds : 

(i} WJtat tlie Muslims are asking for is tlie creation 
of administrative areas which are etlmieally more 
J homogeneous- 

(it) TJie Miisliws want these Jtomogen^ous adininistra- 
tive areas which are predoininently Muslim to be 
constituted into separate states 

(a) because the Muslims by themselves constitute 
a sejjarate nation and desire to have a 
national home, and 

(5) because e3%)erience shows that the Hitidiis ^vant 
to use their uiajority to treat the Musalmans 
as though they were second-class citizens in 
an alien State- 

This part is devoted to the exposition of these grounds. 


On the 26th of March 1940 Hindu India was startled to attention 
as it had never been before. On that day the Muslim League at its 
Lahore Session passed the following Resolution : 

" i. While approving and endorsing the action taken by 
the Council and the Working Committee of the 
All-India Muslim League as indicated in their 
resolutions dated the 27th of August, i7th and i8th 
of September and 22iid of October 1939 and 3rd of 
February 1940 on the constitutional issue, this Session 
of the All-India Muslim League emphatically 
reiterates that the Scheme of Federation embodied in 
the Government of India Act, 1935, is totally unsuited 
to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of, this 
country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim 

" 2. It further records its emphatic view that while the 
declaration dated the i8th of October 1939 made by 
the Viceroy on behalf of his Majesty's Government 
Is reassuring in as far as it declares that the policy 
and plan on which the Government of India Act, 
TO 35, is based will be reconsidered in consultation 
with the various parties, interests and communities 
in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless 
the whole constitutional plan Is reconsidered 
de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable 
to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval 


" 3* Resolved that it is the considered view of this 
Session of the All-India Muslim League that no 
constitutional plan would be workable in this country 
or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designated 
on the following basic principle, viz. that geographi- 
cally contiguous units are demarcated into regions 
which should be so constituted with such territorial 
readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas 
in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority 
as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of India 
should be grouped to constitute " Independent 
States " in which the Constituent Units shall be 
autonomous and sovereign ; 

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards 
should be specifically provided in the constitution 
for minorities in these units and in the regions for 
the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, 
political, administrative and other rights, and interests 
in consultation with them ; and in other parts of 
India where the Musalmans are in a minority, 
adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be 
specifically provided in the constitution for them 
and other minorities for the protection of their reli- 
gious, cultural, economic, political, administrative 
and other rights and interests in consultation with 

" This Session further authorizes the Working 
Committee to frame a scheme of Constitution in 
accordance with these basic principles, providing for 
the assumption finally by the respective regions of all 
powers such as defence, external affairs, communi- 
cation, customs, and such other matters as may be 
necessary. " 

What does this resolution contemplate ? A reference to para. 
3 of the Resolution will show that the Resolution contemplates that 
the areas in which Muslims predominate shall be incorporated into 
Independent States* In concrete terms it means that Punjab, North 
Western Frontier, Baluchistan and Sind in the North-West and 
Bengal wu$fie East will instead of remaining as the Provinces of 


British India shall be incorporated as independent states outside of 
British India. This is the sum and substance of the Resolution of 
the Muslim League. 

Does the Resolution contemplate that these Muslim Provinces 
after being incorporated into states will remain each an independent 
sovereign state or will they be joined together into one constitution 
as members of a single state, federal or unitary ? On this point 
the Resolution is rather ambiguous if not self-contradictory. It 
speaks of grouping the zones into " Independent States in which the 
Constituent Units shall be autonomous and sovereign". The use 
of the terms "Constituent Units " indicates that what is contemplated 
is a Federation. If that is so then the use of the word " sovereign " 
as an attribute of the Units is out of place. Federation of Units 
and sovereignty of Units arc con tradicat ions. It may be that what 
is contemplated is a confederation. It is, however, not very material 
for the moment whether these Independent States are to form into 
a federation or confederation. What is important is the basic demand, 
namely that these areas are to be separated from India and formed 
into Independent States. 

The Resolution is so worded as to give the idea that the 
scheme adumbrated in it is a new one. But there can be no doubt 
that the Resolution merely ressusciates a scheme which was put 
forth by Sir Mahomed Iqubal in his Presidential address to the 
Muslim League at its Annual Session held at Lucknow in December 
1930. The Scheme was not then adopted by the league. It was, 
however, taken up by one Mr. Rehmat Ali who gave it the name, 
Pakistan, by which it is known. Mr. Rehmat Ali, M.A., LL.B., founded 
the Pakistan Movement in 1933. He divided India into two, 
namely Pakistan and Hindustan- His Pakistan included Punjab, 
N. W. F., Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. The rest to him was 
Hindustan- His idea was to have an " Independent and separate 
Pakistan " composed of five Moslem Provinces in the North as an 
independent state. The proposal was circulated to members of the 
Round Table Conference but never officially put forth. But it 
seems an attejnipt was made privately to obtain the consent of the 
British Government They, however, declined to consider it 



because they imagined that this was a " revial of the old Muslim 

The League has only enlarged the original scheme of Pakistan. 
It has sought to create one more Muslim State in the East to 
include the Muslims in Bengal and Assam. Barring this it expresses 
in its essence and general outline the scheme put forth by Sir 
Mahomed Iqubal and propogated by Mr. Rahmat Ali. There is no 
name given to this new Muslim State in the East. Until it is 
christained with a name the whole scheme may be spoken of by the 
name, Pakistan. 

The Scheme not only called Hindu India to attention; it has 
shocked Hindu India. Now it is natural to ask what is there that is 
new or shocking in this Scheme. 


Is the idea of linking up of the provinces in the North-West 
a shocking idea ? If so let it be remembered that the linking of 
these provinces is an age old project put forth by successive 
Viceroys, Administrators and Generals. Of the Pakistan Provinces in 
the North- West, the Punjab and N. W. F. constituted a single province 
ever since the Punjab was conquered by the British in 1849. The 
two continued to be a single province till 1901. It was in 1901 that 
Lord Curzon broke up their unity by creating the present two 
provinces out of what was originally one single province. As to 
the linking up of the Punjab with Sind there can be no doubt that had 
the conquest of Sind followed and not preceded the conquest of 
Punjab it would have been incorporated into the Punjab for the two 
are not only contiguous but are connected by a single river which 
is the most natural tie between them. But although Sind was joined 
to Bombay, because in the absence of the Punjab it was the only base 
freHEft whidb it could be governed, still the idea of disconnecting Sind 
from Bombay and joining it to the Punjab was not given up and 


projects in that behalf were put forth from time to time. It was first 
put forth during the Governor Generalship of Lord Dalhousie ; but 
for financial reasons, it was not sanctioned by the Court of Directors. 
After the Mutiny the question was reconsidered, but owing to the 
backward state of communications, along the Indus, Lord Canning 
refused to give his consent In 1 876 Lord Northbrook was of the opinion 
that Sind should be joined to the Punjab. In 1877 Lord Lytton, who 
succeeded Northbrook, sought to create a trans-Indus province, consist- 
ing of the six frontier districts of the Punjab and of the trans-Indus 
districts of Sind. This would have included the six Frontier districts 
of the Punjab namely, Hazara, Peshawar, Kohat, Bannu (except the 
Cio-Indus tracts), Dora Ismail Khan (with the same exception), Dera 
Gazi Khan, and trans-Indus Sind (with the exception of Karachi). 
Lytton also proposed that Bombay should receive the whole or part of 
the Central Provinces, in order to compensate it for the loss of 
trans-Indus Sind. These proposals were not acceptable to the Secretary 
of State. During the Viceroyalty of Lord Lansdowne (1888-94) the 
same was revived in its original form, namely the transfer of Sind to 
the Punjab, but owing to the formation of the Baluchistan Agency 
Sind had ceased to be a frontier district and the idea which was 
military in its motive lost its force and Sind remained without being 
incorporated in the Punjab. Had the British not acquired Baluchi- 
stan and had Lord Curzon not thought of carving out the N. W. F. 
out of the Punjab, we would have witnessed long ago the creation of 
Pakistan as an Administrative Unit. 

With regard to the claim for the creation of a national Muslim 
State in Bengal again there is nothing new in it. It will be recalled 
by many that in 1905 the Province of Bengal and Assam was 
divided by the then Viceroy, Lord Curzon into two provinces : 

(1) Eastern Bengal and Assam with Dacca as its capital and 

(2) Western Bengal with Calcutta as its capital. The newly created 
province of Eastern Bengal and Assam included Assam and the 
following districts of the old Province of Bengal and Assam : 
(i) Dacca, (2) Mymansingh, (3) Faridpur, (4) Bacfcergunge, 
(5) Tippera, (6) Naokhali, (7) Chittagong, (8) Chittagong Hill Tracts, 
(9) Rajashahi, (10) Dinajpur, (n) Jalpaiguri, (12) Rangpur, 
(13) Bogra, (14) Pabnaand (15) Malda. Western Bengal i 


rest of the districts of the old Province of Bengal and Assam with 
the addition of the district of Sambalpur which was transferred from 
C. R to Western Bengal. 

This division of one province into two, which is known in 
Indian history as the Partition of Bengal, was an attempt to create 
a Muslim State in Eastern Bengal inasmuch as the new province 
of Eastern Bengal and Assam was, barring parts of Assam, a 
predominantly Muslim area. But the partition was abrogated in 
1911 by the British who yielded to the Hindus, who were opposed 
to it and did not care for the wishes of the Muslims, as they were too 
weak to make them felt. Had the partition of Bengal remained 
intact the Muslim state in Eastern Bengal, instead of being a new 
project, would now have been 35 years old.* 


Is the idea of separation of Pakistan from Hindustan shocking ? 
If so, let me recall a few facts which are relevant to the issue and 
which form the basic principles of Congress policy. It will be 
remembered that as soon as Mr. Gandhi captured the Congress he 
did two things to popularize it. First thing he did was to introduce 
Civil Disobedience. 

Before Mr. Gandhi there were two political parties in India 
contending for power, the Liberals and the Terrorists of Bengal. 
In both the conditions for admission were extremely difficult. In 
the Liberal Party the condition for admission was not merely 
education but a high degree of learning. Without first establishing 
a reputation for study one could never hope to obtain admission to 
the Liberal Party. It effectively excluded the uneducated from the 
path to a political career. The Terrorists had prescribed the hardest 
test conceivable. Only those, who were prepared to give their lives 
not in the sense of dedicating it but in the sense of shedding it, could 

^Government of India Gazette Notification No. 2832, dated let September 
1905* The two Provinces became separate administrative Units from 16th October 

cfaap. i] 



become members of their organization. No knave could therefore 
get an entry in the terrorists, organization. Civil disobedience does 
not require learning. It does not call for the shedding of life. It is 
an easy middle way for that large majority who have no learning 
and who do not wish to undergo the extreme penalty and at the 
same time obtain the fame and notoriety of being patriots. It is 
this middle path which made the Congress more popular than the 
Liberal Party or the Terrorist Party. 

The second thing Mr. Gandhi did was to introduce the 
principle of Linguistic Provinces. In the constitution that was 
framed by the Congress under the inspiration and guidance of 
Mr. Gandhi, India was to be divided into the following Provinces 
with the language and head quarters as given below : 




And lira 

Bombay (City) 
N. W. R 

Tamil Nadu 
United Provinces 
Vidarbha (Berar) 



Head Quarters. 

. . Madras. 




. . Delhi. 


. . Calicut. 
. . Jubbulpore. 



. . Lahore. 
. . Karachi. 
. . Madras. 

. . Cuttok. 
. . Akola, 


In this distribution there is no attention paid to considera- 
tions of area, population or revenue. The thought that every 


administrative unit must be capable of supporting and supplying 
a minimum standard of civilized life, for which it must have 
sufficient area, sufficient population and sufficient revenue has no 
place in this scheme of distribution of areas for provincial 
purposes. The dominant factor is language, unmitigated by any 
other consideration. No thought is given to the fear that it might 
introduce a disruptive force in the already loose structure of the 
Indian social life. The scheme was no doubt put forth with the 
sole object of winning the people to the Congress by appealing to 
their local patriotism. The idea of linguistic provinces has come 
to stay and the demand for giving effect to it has become so 
insistent and irresistible that the Congress when if came into 
power was forced to put it into effect. Orissa was separated from 
Bihar. Andhra is demanding separation from Madras. Karnatak 
is asking for separation from Maharashtra. The only linguistic 
province that is not demanding separation from Maharashtra is 
Gujarat. Or rather Gujarat has given up for the moment the idea 
of separation. That is probably because Gujarat has realized that 
union with Maharashtra is, politically as well as commercially, 
a better investment. 

Be that as it may, the fact remains that separation on 
linguistic basis is now an accepted principle with the Congress. 
It is no use saying that the separation of Karnatak ano Andhra is 
based on linguistic difference and that the claim to separation of 
Pakistan is based on cultural difference. This is a distinction 
without difference. Linguistic difference is simply another name 
for cultural difference. 

Now if there is nothing shocking in the separation of Karnatak 
and Andhra what is there to shock in the demand for the 
separation of Pakistan ? If it is disruptive in its effect it is no more 
disruptive than the separation of Hindu provinces such as 
Karnatak from Maharashtra or Andhra from Madras. Pakistan 
is merely another manifestation of a cultural unit demanding 
freedom f6r the growth of its own distinctive culture. 


That th&re are factors, administrative, linguistic or cultural, 
which are the predisposing causes behind these demands for separa- 
tion, is a fact which is admitted and understood by all. Nobody 
minds these demands and many 'are prepared to concede them. 
But the Hindus say that the Muslims are going beyond the idea of 
separation and the questions are askeu what has led them to take this 
course ; why are they asking for partition, for an annulment of 
the tie by asking that Pakistan be legally divorced from Hindustan. 

The answer is to be found in the declaration made by the 
Muslim League in its Resolution that the Muslims of India are 
a separate nation. It is this declaration by the Muslim League, 
which is both resented and rediculed by the Hindus. 

The Hindu resentment is quite natural. "Whether India is 
a nation or not has been the subject matter of controversy between 
the Anglo-Indians and the Hindu politicians ever since the Indian 
National Congress was founded. The Anglo-Indians were never 
tired of proclaiming that India was not a nation, that i Indians ' was 
only another name for the people of India. In the words of one 
Anglo-Indian " to know India was to forget that there is such 
a thing as India". The Hindu politicians and patriots were on the 
other hand equally persistent in their assertion that India is 
a natiop. That the Anglo-Indians were right in their repudiation 
cannot be gainsaid. Even Dr. Tagore, the national poet of Bengal, 
agrees with them. But the Hindus never yielded on the point even 
to Dr. Tagore. 

This was because of two reasons, Firstly the Himla felt 
ashamed to adinit that India was act a nation. In a world 


nationality and nationalism were deemed to be special virtues in 
a people it was quite natural for . the Hindus to feel, to use the 
language of Mr. H. G. Wells, that " it would be as improper for 
India to be without a nationality as it would be for a man to be 
without his clothes in a crowded assembly ". Secondly, he had 
realized that nationality had a most intimate connection with the 
claim for self-government. He knew that by the end of the igth 
Century it had become an accepted principle that a people, who 
constituted a nation, were entitled on that account to self-govern- 
ment and that any patriot, who asked for self-government for his 
people, had to prove that they were a nation. The Hindu for these 
reasons never stopped to examine whether India was or was not 
a nation in fact. He never cared to reason whether nationality 
was merely a question of calling a people a nation or was 
a question of the people being a nation. He knew one thing, 
namely, he must maintain, even if he could not prove it, that India 
was a nation if he was to succeed in his demand for self-government 
for India. 

In this assertion he was never contradicted by any Indian. 
The thesis was so agreeable that even serious Indian students of 
history came forward to write propagandist literature in support of 
it, no doubt out of patriotic motives. The Hindu social reformers, 
who knew that this was a dangerous delusion, could not openly 
contradict this thesis. For any one who questioned it was at once 
called a tool of the British bureaucracy and an enemy of the countr/. 
The Hindu politician was able to propagate his view for a long 
time. His opponent, the Anglo-Indian, had ceased to reply to 
him. His propaganda had almost succeeded. When it was about 
to succeed comes this declaration of the Muslim League this rift in 
the lute. Just because it does not come from the Anglo-Indian it 
is a deadlier blow. It destroys the work which the Hindu politician 
has done for centuries. If the Muslims in India are a separate 
nation then of course India is not a nation. This assertion cuts the 
whole ground from under the feet of the Hindu politicians. It is 
natural that they should feel annoyed by it and call it a stab in 
the back. 

But stab or no stab, the point is, can the Musalmans be said to 
Constitute a nation? Everything else is beside the point. This 

chap, n] A NATK>N 

raises the question. What is a nation ? Tomes" 
on the subject. Those who are curious may go 
and study the different basic conceptions that lie at the core 
as well as the different aspects of it. But it is enough to know the 
core of the subject and that can be set down in a very few words. 
Nationality is a subjective psychological feeling. It is a feeling of 
a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged 
with it feel that they are kith and kin. This national feeling is 
a double edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship for one's 
own kith and a anti- fellowship feelling for those who are not one's 
own kith. It is a feeling of " consciousness of kind " which on the 
one hand binds together those, who have it so strongly that it 
overrides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social 
gradations and on the other, severs them from those who are not of 
their kind. It is a longing to belong to one's own group and 
a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence 
of what is called a nationality and national feeling. 

Now apply th;s test to the Muslim claim. Is it or is it not 
a fact that the Muslims of India are an exclusive group ? Is it or 
is it not a fact that they have a consciousness of kind ? Is it or 
is it not a fact that each Muslim is possessed by a longing to belong 
to his own group and not any non-Muslim group ? 

If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative then the 
controversy must end and the Muslim claim that they are a nation 
must be accepted without cavail. 

What the Hindus must show is that notwithstanding some 
differences there are enough affinities between Hindus and Musal- 
mans to constitute them into one nation or to use plain language 
which make the Muslims and Hindus long to belong together. 

Hindus, who disagree with the Muslims view that the Muslim 
are a separate nation by themselves, rely upon certain features of 
Indian social life and which seem to form the bonds of integra- 
tion between Muslim society and Hindu society. 

In the first place it is said that there is no difference of race 

between Hindus and Muslims. That the Punjabi Musalman and 

the Punjabi Hindu, the U. P. Musalman and the U. P. 



and the Bihar Hindu, the Bengal Musalman 
^'vue Bengal Hindu, the Madras Musalman and Madras Hindu^ 
the Bombay Musalman and the Bombay Hindu are racially of one 
stock. Indeed there is more racial affinity between the Madras 
Musalman and the Madras Brahmin than there is between the 
Madras Brahmin and the Punjab Brahmin. In the second place 
reliance is placed upon linguistic unity between Hindus and Muslims. 
It is said that the Musalmans have no common language of their 
own which can mark them off as a linguistic group separate from 
the Hindus. On the contrary there is a complete linguistic unity 
between the two. In the Punjab both Hindus and Muslims speak 
Punjabi. In Sind both speak Sindhi. In Bengal both speak 
Bengali. In Gujarat both speak Gujarati. In Maharashtra both 
speak Marathi. So in every province. It is only in towns that 
the Musalmans speak Urdu and the Hindus speak the language 
of the province. But outside in the mofussil there is complete 
linguistic unity between Hindus and Musalmans. Thirdly, it is 
pointed out that India is the land, which the Hindus and Musalmans 
have now occupied together for centuries. It is not exclusively the 
land of the Hindus, nor is it exclusively the land of the Mahomedans. 

Not only reliance is placed upon racial unity but reliance is 
also placed upon certain common features in the social and cultural 
life of the two communities. It is pointed out that the social life 
of many Muslim groups is honey-combed with Hindu customs. For 
instance the Avans of the Punjab, though they are nearly all 
Muslims, retain Hindu names and keep their geneologies in the 
Brahmanic fashion. Hindu surnames are also found among Muslims. 
For instance the surname Chaudhari is a Hindu surname but is 
common among Musalmans of TJ. P. and Northern India. In the 
matter of marriage certain groups of Muslims are Muslims in name 
only. They either follow the Hindu form of the ceremony alone or 
perform the ceremony first by Hindu rites and then call the Kazi 
and have it performed in the Muslim form. In some sections of 
Muslims the law applied is Hindu Law in the matter of marriage, 
guardianship and inheritance. This was so even in the Punjab and 
the N. W* F. In the social sphere the caste system is alleged to be 
as much a part of Muslim society as it is of Hindu society, In the 


religious sphere it is pointed out that many Muslim pirs had Hindu 
disciples; and similarly some Hindu Yogis have had Muslim chelae 
Reliance is placed on instances of friendship between saints of the 
rival creeds* At Girot, in the Punjab, the tombs of two ascetics, 
Jamali Sultan and Diyal Bhawan, who lived in close amity during 
the early part of the nineteenth century, stand close to one another, 
and are reverenced by Hindus and Musalmans alike. Bawa Fathu, 
a Muslim Saint, who lived about 1700 A. D. and whose tomb is at 
Ranital in the Kangra District, received the title of prophecy by the 
blessing of a Hindu Saint, Sodhi Guru Gulab Singh. On the other 
hand, Baba Shahana, a Hindu Saint whose cult is observed in the 
Jang District, is said to have been the Chela of a Muslim pir who 
changed the original name, Mihra, of his Hindu follower, into 
Mir Shah. 

Now all this, of course, is true. That a large majority of the 
Muslims belong to the same race as the Hindus is beyond question* 
That all Mahomedans do not speak a common tounge, that many 
speak the same language as the Hindus cannot be denied. That 
there are certain social customs which are common to both cannot be 
gainsaid. That certain religious rites and practices are common to 
both is also a matter of fact. But the question is : can all this support 
the conclusion that the Hindus and Mahomedans on account of them 
constitute one nation or these things have fostered in them a feeling 
that they long to belong to each other ? Such a conclusion would 
be nothing short of an utter delusion. 

There are many flaws in the Hindu argument. In the first place 
what are pointed out as common features are not the result of a con- 
scious attempt to adopt or adapt each others' ways and manners to bring 
about social fusion. On the other hand this uniformity is the result 
of certain purely mechanical causes. They are partly due to incom- 
plete conversions. In a land like India where the majority of the \ 
Muslim population has been recruited from caste and out-caste 
Hindus the Muslimization of the convert was not complete and effec- 
tual, either from fear of revolt or because of the method of persuation 
or insufficiency of preaching due to insufficiency of priestly stuff. 
There is therefore little wonder if great sections of the Muslim 
community here and there reveal their Hindu origin in their religious 

MtJStIM CASE **>& PAK&ftMt 

social life. Partly it is to be explained as the effect of common 
environment to which both Hindus and Muslims have been subjected 
for centuries. A common environment is bound to produce common 
reactions and constantly reacting in the same way to the same environ- 
ment is bound to produce a common type. Partly are these common 
features to be explained as the remnants of a period of religious 
amalgamation between Hindus and Muslims inaugurated by the 
Emperor Akbar, the result of a dead past which has no present and 
no future. 

As to the argument based on unity of race, unity of language 
and occupation of a common county the matter stands on 
a different footing. If these considerations were decisive in making 
or unmaking a nation the Hindus would be right in saying that 
by reason of race, community of language and habitant the Hindus 
and Musalmans form one nation. As a matter of historical expe- 
rience neither race, nor language nor country has sufficed to 
mould a people into a nation. The argument is so well put by 
Renan that it is impossible to improve upon -his language. Long 
ago in his famous essay on Nationality Renan observed : 

" that race must not be confounded with nation. The truth is 
that it is no pure race ; and that making politics depend upon 
ethnographical analysis, is allowing it to be borne upon a Chimera... 
Racial facts, important as they are in the begining, have 
a constant tendency to lose their importance. Human history is 
essentially different Zoology. Race is not everything, as it is in the 
sense of rodents and felines. " 

Speaking about language Renan points out that : 

44 Language invites re-union ; it does not force it. The United 
States and England, Spanish America and Spain, speak the same 
languages and do not form single nations. On the contrary, 
Switzerland owes her stability to the fact that she was founded by 
the assent of her several parts, counts three or four languages. In man 
there is something superior to language, - will. The will of Switzer- 
land to be united, in spite of the variety of her languages, is 
a much more important fact than a similarity of language, often 
obtained by persecution ". 

As to common country Renan argued that : 

^ It Is no more the land than the face that makes a nation. 

the field of battle and 


. man provides the soul ; man Is everything in the formation of that 
sacred thing which is called a people. Nothing of material nature 
suffices for it. " 

Having shown that race, language, country do not suffice to 
create a nation Renan raises in a pointed manner the question, 
what more then is necessary to constitute a nation ? His answer 
may be given in his own words : 

" A nation is a living soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, 
which in truth are but one, constitute this soul, this spiritual 
principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the / 
common possession of a rich heritage of memories ; the other is 
the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to preserve 
worthily the undivided inheritance which has been handed down. 
Man does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the 
outcome of a long past of efforts, and sacrifices, and devotion. 
Ancestor-worship is therefore, all the more legitimate ; for our 
ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, 
glory, I mean glory of the genuine kind, these form the social 
capital, upon which a national idea may be founded. To have 
common glories in the past, a common will in the present ; to have 
done great things together, to will to do the like again, such are 
the essential conditions for the making of a people. We love in 
proportion to the sacrifices we have consented to make, to the 
sufferings we have endured. We love the house that we have built, 
and will hand down to our descendant. The Spartan hymn, " We 
are what you were ; we shall be what you are ", is in its simplicity 
the national anthem of every land. 

" In the past an inheritance of glory and regrets to be shared, 
in the future a like ideal to be realised ; to have suffered, and 
rejoiced, and hoped together ; all these things are worth more than 
custom houses in common, and frontiers in accordance with strate- 
gical ideas ; all these can be understood in spite of diversities of 
race and language. I said just now, *to have suffered together' 
for indeed, suffering in common is a greater bond of union than joy* 
As regards national memories, mournings are worth more than 
triumphs ; for they impose duties, they demand common effort ". 

Are there any common historical antecedents which the 
Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matters of 
pride or as matters of sorrow ? That is the crux of the question* 
That is the question which the Hindus must answer, if they wish 


to maintain, that Hindus and Musalmans together form a nation. 
Now so far as this aspect of their relationship is concerned they 
have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. 
There was no common cycle of participation for a common achive- 
ment. Their past is a past of mutual destruction a past of mutual 
animosities, both in the political as well as in the religious fields. 
As Bhai Parmanand points out in his pamphlet called " The Hindu 
National Movement " : " In history the Hindus revere the 
memory of Prithi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and Be-ragi Bir who fought 
for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims) , 
while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, 
like Muhammad bin Qusim and rulers like Aurangzeb as 
their national heroes ". In the religious field Hindus draw 
their inspirations from the Ramayan, Mahabharat, and the Geeta. 
The Musalman on the other hand derive their inspiration from 
the Quaran and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far 
more vital than the things which unite. In depending upon 
certain common features of Hindu and Mahomedan social life, 
in relying upon common language, common race and common 
country the Hindu is mistaking what is accidental and superficial 
for what is essential and fundamental. The political and religious 
antagonisms divide the Hindus and Musalmans far more deeply 
than the so-called common things able to bind them together. 
The prospects might perhaps be different if the past of the two 
communities can be forgotten by both. Renan points out the 
importance of forgetfulness as a factor in building up a nation : 

" Forgetfulness, and I shall even say historical error, form an 
essential factor in the creation of a nation ; and thus it is that the 
progress of historical studies may often be dangerous to the 
nationality. Historical research, in fact, brings back to light the 
deeds of violence that have taken place at the commencement of 
all political formations, even of those the consequences of which 
have been most benefiicial. Unity is ever achieved by brutality* 
The union of Northern and Southern France was the result of 
an extermination, and of a reign of terror that lasted for nearly 
a hundred years. The king of France who was, if I may say so, the 
ideal type of a secular crystalliser, the king of France who made 
the most perfect national unity In existence, lost his prestige when 
seen at too close a distance- The nation that he had formed 


cursed him ; and today the knowledge of what he was worth, and 
what he did, belonges only to the cultured. 

" It is by contrast that these great laws of the history of Western 
Europe become apparent. In the undertaking which the king of 
France, in part by his justice, achieved so admirably, many 
countries came to disaster. Under the crown of St. Stephen, 
Magyars and Slave have remained as distinct as they were eight 
hundred years ago. Far from combining the different elements in its 
dominions, the house of Hapsburg has held them apart and often 
opposed to one another. In Bohemia, the Czech element and the 
German element are superimposed like oil and water in a glass: 
The Turkish policy of separation of nationalities according to relig- 
ion has had much graver results. It has brought about the ruin of 
the East. Take a town like Smyrna or Salonica ; you will find 
there five or six communities each with its own memories, and 
possessing among them scarcely anything in common. But the 
essence of the nation is, that all its individual members should 
have things in common ; and also, that all of them should hold 
many things in oblivion. No French citizen knows whether he 
is a Burgundian, and Alan, or a Visgoth ; every French citizen 
ought to have forgotten St. Bartholomew, and the massacred of 
the South in the thirteenth century. There are not ten families 
in France able to furnish proof of a French origin ; and yet, even 
if such a proof were given, it would be essentially defective, in 
consequence of a thousand unknown crosses, capable of deranging 
all genealogical systems ". 

The pity of it is that the two Communities can never 
forget or obliterate their past. Because their past is imbedded in 
their religion, for each to give up its past is to give up its religion. 
To hope for this is to hope in vain. 

In the absence of common historical antecedents the Hindu 
view that Hindu and Musalmans form one nation falls to the 
ground. To maintain it is to keep up a hallucination. There is 
no such longing between the Hindus and Musalmans to belong 
together as there is among the Musalmans of India. 

It is no use saying that this claim of the Musalmans being 
a nation is an after-thought of their leaders. As an accusation it 
is true. The Muslims were hitherto quite content to call them- 
selves a community. It is only recently that they have begun 


to style themselves a nation. But an accusation, attacking the 
motives of a person, does not amount to a refutation of his thesis. 
To say that because the Muslims once called themselves a commu- 
nity, they are, therefore, now debarred from calling themselves 
a nation is to misunderstand the mysterious working of the psycho- 
logy of national feeling. Such an argument presupposes that 
wherever there exist a people, who possess the elements that go to 
the making up of a nation there must be manifested that sentiment 
of nationality which is their natural consequence and that if they 
fail to manifest it for some time then that is to be used as evidence 
showing the unreality of the claim of being a nation, if made 
afterwards. There is no historical support for such a contention. 
As Prof. Toynbee points out : 

" it is impossible to argue a priori from the presence of one or even 
several of these factors to the existence of a nationality ; they may 
have been there for ages and kindled no response and it is impossible 
to argue from one case to another ; pricisely the same group of factors 
may produce nationality here, and there have no effect. 

This is probably due to the fact, as pointed out by Prof. 
Barker, that it is possible for nations to exist and even to exist for 
centuries, in unreflective silence and that the spiritual essence 
of a national life may exist without the members of a nation 
being aware of its presence. Some such thing has no 
doubt happened in the case of the Musalmans. They were not 
aware of the fact that there existed for them the spiritual essence 
of a national life. This explains why the sense of nationality 
dawned upon them so late. But it does not mean that the 
spiritual essence of a national life did not exist at all. 

It is no use contending that there are cases where a sense of 
nationality exists but there is no desire for a separate national 
existence. Cases of the French in Canada, of the English in South 
Africa, may be cited as cases in point. It must be admitted that 
there do exist cases, where people are aware of their nationality, but 
t$t$s awareness does not produce in them that passion which is 
called liifttionalisni. In other words, there may be nations conscious 
of tlfemsd^es but without being charged with nationalism* On the 

of jtfefei ^i^spning it may be ur^ed that the Musalmans may hold 


that they are a nation but they need not on that account demand 
a separate national existence ; why can they not be content with the 
position which the French occupy in Canada and the English 
occupy in South Africa ? Such a position is quite a sound position. 
It must, however, be remembered that such a position can only be taken 
by way of pleading with the Muslims not to insist on partition. It is no 
argument against their claim for partition if they insist upon it. 

But lest pleading should be mistaken for refutation it is necessary 
to draw attention to two things. Firstly there is a difference between 
nationality and nationalism. They are two different psychological states 
of the human mind. Nationality means " consciousness of kind, 
awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship ". Nationalism means 
" the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by 
this tie of kinship." Secondly it is true there cannot be nationalism 
without the feeling of nationality being in existence. But it is important 
to bear in mind that the converse is not always true. The feeling of 
nationality may be present and yet the feeling of nationalism may be 
quite absent. That is to say nationality does not in all cases produce 
nationalism. For nationality to flame into nationalism two conditions 
must exist. First there must arise the " will to live as a nation." 
Nationalism is the dynamic expression of that desire. Secondly there 
must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state 
as well as a cultural home of the nation. Without such a territory 
nationalism, to use Lord Acton's phrase, would be a " soul as it were 
wandering in search of a body in which to begin life over again and dies 
out finding none ". The Muslims have developed a " will to live as 
a nation. " For them nature has found a territory which they can 
occupy and make it a state as well as a cultural home for the new born 
Muslim nation. Given these favourable conditions there should be no 
wonder if the Muslims say that they are not content to occupy the 
position which the French choose to occupy in Canada or the English 
choose to occupy in South Africa : that they shall have a national home 
which they can call their own. 


" What justification have the Musalmans of India for demanding 
the partition of India and the establishment of separate Muslim States ? 
Why this issurrection ? What grievances have they ? " ask the Hindus 
in a spirit of righteous indignation. 

Any one who knows history will not fail to realize that it has now 
been a well established principle that nationalism is a sufficient justification 
for the creation of a national state. As the great historian Lord Acton 
points out : 

"In the old European System, the rights of nationalities were 
neither recognized by Governments nor asserted by the people. The 
interest of the reigning families, not those of the nations, regulated 
the frontiers, and the administration was conducted generally 
without any reference to popular desires. Where all liberties were 
suppressed, the claims of national independence were necessarily 
ignored, and a princess, in the words of Fenelon, carried a monarchy 
in her wedding portion. " 

Nationalities were at first listless. When they became conscious-^- 
" They first rose against their conquerors in defence of their legitimate 
rulers. They refused to be governed by usurpers. Next came 
a time when they revolted because of the wrongs inflicted upon them 
by their rulers. The insurrections were provoked by particular 
grievances justified by definite complaints. Then came the French 
Revolution which effected a complete change. It taught the people 
to regard their wishes and wants as the supreme criterion of their 
right to do what they liked to do with themselves. It proclaimed 
the idea of the sovereignty of the people uncontrolled by the past 
*nd uncontrolled by the existing state. This text taught by the 
Preach Revolution became an accepted dogrpa of all liberal thinkers. 
MiU gave it his support. "One hardly knows" says Mill "what 

56 MtrsUM CASE FOR PAKISTAN [part l 

any division of the human race should be freed to do, if not to 
determine with which of the various collective bodies of human 
beings they choose to associate themselves". 

He even went so far as to hold that 

" It is in general a necessary condition of free institutions that the 
boundaries of governments should coincide in the main with those 
of nationalities. " 

Thus history shows that the theory of nationality is imbedded in the 
democratic theory of the sovereignty of the will of a people. This 
means the demand by a nationality for a national state does not require 
to be supported by any list of grievances. The will of the people is 
enough to justify it. 

But if grievances must be cited in support of their claim then the 
Muslims say that they have them in plenty. They may be summed 
up in one sentence namely that constitutional safeguards have failed to 
save them from the tyranny of the Hindu majority. 

At the Round Table Conference the Muslims presented their list 
of safeguards, which were formulated in the well-known fourteen points. 
The Hindu representatives at the Round Table Conference would not 
consent to them. There was an impasse. The British Government 
intervened and gave what is known as " the Communal decision." By that 
decision the Muslims got all their fourteen points. There was much 
bitterness amongst the Hindus against the Communal Award. But the 
Congress did not take part in the hostility that was displayed by the 
Hindus generally towards it although it did retain the right to describe 
it as anti-national and to get it changed with the consent of the 
Muslims. So careful was the Congress not to wound the feelings of 
the Muslims that when the Resolution was moved in the Central 
Assembly condemning the Communal Award the Congress, though it 
did not bless it, remained neutral neither opposing nor supporting it. 
The Mahomedans were well justified in looking upon this Congress 
attitude as a friendly gesture. 

The victory of the Congress at the polls in the Provinces, where 
the Hindus are in a majority, did not disturb the tranquility of the 
Musalmans. They felt they had nothing to fear from the Congress 
and the prospects were that the Congress and the Muslim League 
woife the constitution in partnership. But two years and seven 


months of the Congress Government in the -Hindu Provinces have 
completely disillusioned them and have made them the bitterest enemies 
of the Congress. The Deliverance Day celebration held on the 
22nd December 1939 shows the depth of their resentment. What 
is worse, their bitterness is not confined to the Congress. Musalmans 
who at the Round Table Conference joined in the demand for Swaraj 
are today the most ruthless opponents of Swaraj. 

What has the Congress done to annoy the Muslims so much ? 
The Muslim League has asserted that under the Congress regime the 
Muslims were actually tyrannized and oppressed. Two Committees 
appointed by the League are said to have investigated and reported on 
the matter. But apart from these matters which require to be examined 
by an impartial tribunal, there are undoubtedly two things which have 
produced the clash. ( i ) The refusal by the Congress to recognize the 
Muslim League as the only representative body of the Muslims. (2) The 
refusal by the Congress to form Coalition Ministries in Congress 

On the first question, both the Congress and the League are 
adamant. The Congress is prepared to accept the Muslim League as 
one of the many Muslim political organizations such as the Ahrar 
Party, National Muslims and Jamait-ul-Ulema. But it will not accept 
the Muslim League as the only representative body "of the Muslims. 
The Muslim League on the other hand is not prepared to enter into 
any talks unless the Congress accepts it as the only representative body 
of the Musalmans of India. The Hindus stigmatize this claim of the 
League as an extravagant one and try to ridicule it. The Muslims may 
say that if the Hindus would only stop to inquire how treaties between 
nations are made they would realize the stupidity of their view. It mav 
be argued that when a nation proceeds to make a treaty with another 
nation it recognizes the Government of the latter as fully representing 
it* Now in no country does the Government of the day represent 
the whole nation. A Government of the day only represents a majority. 
But nations do not refuse to settle their disputes because the Govern- 
ments which represent them do not represent the whole people. It is 
enough if each Government represents a majority of its citizens. This., 
analogy, the Muslims may contend, must apply to the Congress League 
qjiarrel on this issue. The League may not represent the whole body 

MtSSUM CASK f6St *JMCB5TA*| [ part 

of Muslims. But if it represents a majority of them then the 
should have no cxsmpunction to deal with it for the purpose of effecting 
a settlement of the Hindu- Moslem question. Of course it is open to the 
Government of a country not to recognize the Government of another 
country where there is more than one body claiming to be the 
Government. Similarly the Congress may not recognize the League. 
But then it must recognize either the National Muslims or the Ahrars 
or the Jamiat-ul-Ulema and fix the terms of settlement between the two 
communities. Of course, it must act with the full knowledge as to which 
is more likely to be repudiated by the Muslims an agreement with the 
League or an agreement with the other Muslim parties. The Congress 
must deal with one or the other. To deal with neither is not only 
stupid but mischievous. This attitude of the Congress only serves to 
annoy the Muslims and to exasperate them. The Muslims rightly 
interpret this attitude of the Congress as an attempt to create divisions 
among them with a view to cause confusion in their ranks and weaken 
their front. 

On the second issue, the Muslim demand has been that in the 
cabinets there shall be included Muslim Ministers who have the 
confidence of the Muslim members in the Legislature. They expected 
that this demand of theirs would be met by the Congress if it came 
in power. But they were sorely disappointed. "With regard to this 
demand the Congress took a legalistic attitude. The Congress agreed 
to include Muslims iri their cabinets provided they resigned from their 
parties, joined the Congress and signed the Congress pledge. This was 
resented by the Muslims on three grounds. 

In the first place, they regarded it as a breach of faith. The 
Muslims say that this demand of theirs is in accordance with the 
spirit of the Constitution. At the Round Table Conference it was 
agreed that the cabinets shall include representatives of the minority 
communities. The minorities insisted that a provision to that effect 
should be made a part of the statute. The Hindus on the other hand 
desired that the matter should be left to be regulated by convention. 
A t$* media was found. It was agreed that the provision should find 
& place in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governors of the 
FtpTipbes $d an obligation should be imposed upon him to see that 
effect ^as i^^ convention in the foyiaamtkm of die cabinets* 


The Musalmans did not insist upon making this provision a part of the 
statute because they depended upon the good faith of the Hindus. 
But this agreement was broken by a party which had given the 
Muslims to understand that towards them its attitude would be not 
only correct but considerate. 

In the second place, the Muslims felt that the Congress view was 
a perversion of the real scope of the convention. They rely upon the 
text of the clause* in the Instrument of Instructions and argue that 
the words " member of a minority community " in it can have only one 
meaning, namely, a person having confidence of the community. The 
position taken by the Congress is in direct contradiction with the 
meaning of this clause and is indeed a covert attempt to break all 
other parties in the country and to make the Congress the only 
political party in the country. The demand for signing the Congress 
pledge can have no other intention. This attempt to establish 
a totalitarian state may be welcome to the Hindus. But it meant the 
political death of the Muslims as a free people. 

This resentment of the Muslims was considerably aggravated 
when they found the Governors, on whom the obligation was imposed 
to see that effect was given to the convention, declined to act. Some 
Governors declined because they were helpless by reason of the fact 
that the Congress was the only majority party which could produce 
a stable Government, that a Congress Government was the only 
government possible and that there was no alternative to it except 
suspending the constitution. Other Governors declined because they 
became active supporters of the Congress Governments and showed 
their partisanship by praising the Congress or by wearing Khadi which 
is the official party dress of the Congress. Whatever be the reasons 
the Muslims discovered that an important safeguard had failed to 
save them. 

f In making appointments to his Council of Ministers our Governor shaft cae 
his best endeavours to select his Ministers in the following manner, that is to ay^ 
to appoint in consultation with the person who in hie judgment is most likely to 
command a stable majority in the Legislature those persons (including so far as 
practicable members of important minority communities) who will best ba ill 
a position collectively to command the confidence of the Legislature. In so actual 
he shall bear constantly m mind the need for fostering a aense of joint responsibility 
among hia Miaitars f w 


The Congress reply to these accusations by the Muslims are 
mainly two. In the first place, they say that coalition cabinets are 
inconsistent with collective responsibility of the cabinet. This the 
Musalmans refuse to accept as an honest plea. The English people 
were the first and the only people, who made it a principle of their 
system of Government. But even there it has been abandoned since. 
The English Parliament debated the issue and came to the conclusion 
that it was so sacrosanct as could not be departed from nor a departure 
from it affected the efficiency or smooth working of the govern- 
mental machine. Secondly, as a matter of fact there was no collective 
responsibity in the Congress Government. It was a Government 
by departments. Each Minister was independent of the other and 
the Prime Minister was just a Minister. For the Congress to talk 
about collective responsibiliy was just really impertinent. The plea 
was even dishonest, because it is a fact that in provinces where the 
Congress was in a minority they did form coalition Ministries without 
asking the Minister from other parties to sign the Congress pledge. 
The Muslims are entitled to ask that if coalition is bad it must be bad 
in all places, how can it be good in one place and bad in another ? 

The second reply of the Congress is that even if they have to take 
Muslim Ministers in their cabinet who have not the confidence of the 
majority of the Muslims, they have not failed to protect their interests. 
Indeed they have done everything to advance the interests of the 
Muslims. This no doubt rests on the view Pope held of government 
when he said 

" With forms of Government let fools contend ; 
What is administered best is best " 

But the Congress High Command seem to have misunderstood 
what the main contention of the Muslims and the Minorities has been. 
Their quarrel is not on the issue whether the Congress has or has not 
done any good to the Muslims and the Minorities. Their quarrel is on 
an issue which is totally different. Are the Hindus to be a ruling race 
and the Muslims and other minorities to be subject races under Swaraj ? 
That is the issue involved in the demand for coalition ministries. On 
that the Muslims and other minorities have taken a definite stand. 
They are not prepared to accept the position of subject 


That the ruling community has done good to the ruled is quite 
beside the point and is no answer to the contention of the minority 
communities that they refuse to be treated as a subject people. The 
British have done many good things in India for the Indians. They 
have improved their roads, constructed canals on more scientific 
principles, effected their transport by Railways, carried their letters 
by penny post, flashed their messages by lightening, improved their 
currency, regulated their weights and measures, corrected their notions 
of geography, astronomy and medicine and stopped their internal 
quarrels and effected some advancement in their material conditions. 
But because of these acts of good government did any-body on that 
account ask the Indian people to remain grateful to the British and 
give up their agitation for self-government ? Or because of these acts 
of social uplift did the Indians on that account give up their protest 
against being treated as a subject race by the British ? The Indians 
did nothing of the kind. They refused to be satisfied with these good 
deeds and continued to agitate for their right to rule themselves. This 
is as it should be. For, as was said by Curran, the Irish Patriot, no 
man can be grateful at the cost of his self respect, no woman can be 
grateful at the cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the 
cost of its honour. To do otherwise is to show that one's philosophy of 
life is just what Carlyle called i pig philosophy '. The Congress High 
Command does not seem to realize that the Muslim and the other 
minorities care more for the recognition of their self respect at the hands 
of the Congress than for mere good act on the part of the Congress. 
Men who are conscious of their being are not pigs who care only for 
fattening food. They have their pride which they will not yield even 
for gold. In short " life is more than the meat ". 

It is no use saying that the Congress is not a Hindu body 
A body which is Hindu in its composition is bound to reflect the Hindu 
mind and support Hindu aspirations. The only difference between the 
Congress and the Hindu Maha Sabha is that the latter is crude in its 
utterance and brutal in its actions while the Congress is politic and 
polite. But apart from this difference of fact there is no other 
difference between the Congress and the Hindu Maha Sabha. 

Similarly it is no use saying that the Congress does not recognize 
the distinction between rulers and ruled. If thfe is so the Congress 


must prove its bond fides by showing its readinesss to recognize the 
other communities as free and equal partners. What is the test of 
such recognition ? It seems to me that there can be only one namely 
agreeing to share power with the effective representatives of the 
minority communities. Is the Congress prepared for it ? Every one 
knows the answer. The Congress is not prepared to share power 
with a member of a community who does not owe allegiance to the 
Congress. Allegiance to Congress is a condition precedent to sharing 
power. It seems to be a rule with the Congress that it allegiance to 
Congress is not forthcoming from a community then that community 
must be excluded from political power. 

Exclusion from political power is the essence of the distinction 
between ruling race and subject race and inasmuch as the 
Congress maintained this principle it must be said that this 
distinction was enforced by the Congress while it was in the 
saddle. The Musalmans may well complain that they have 
already suffered enough and that this reduction to the position of 
a subject race is like the proverbial last straw. Their decline and fall 
in India began ever since the British occupation of the country. 
Every change, executive, administrative or legal, introduced by the 
British has inflicted a series of blows upon the Muslim Community. 
The Muslim rulers of India had allowed the Hindus to retain their 
law in civil matters. But they had abrogated the Hindu criminal 
law and had made the Muslim criminal law the law of the state 
applicable to all Hindus as well as Muslims. The first thing the 
British did was to displace gradually the Muslim criminal law by 
another of their making until the process was finally completed by 
the enactment of Macauley's Penal Code. This was the first blow 
to the prestige and position of the Muslim Community in India. This 
was followed by the abridgement of the field of application of the 
Shariat or the Muslim Civil Law. Its application was restricted 
to matters concerning personal relations such as marriage and 
inheritance and then only to the extent permitted by the British. Side 
by side came the abolition in 1837 of Persian as the official language 
of the Court and of the general administration and the substitution of 
the English and the vernaculars in place of Persian. Then came 
the iflteH&Q^ of the Quazis who during the Muslim rule administered 
I their]places were apppointed law officers and judges 


who might be of any religion but who got the right of interpreting 
Muslim law and whose decisions became binding on Muslims. These were 
severe blows to the Muslims. As a result the Muslims found their prestige 
gone, their laws replaced, their language shelved and their education shorn 
of its monetary value. Along with these came more palpable blo^s in 
the shape of annexation of Sind and Oudli and the Mutiny. The last 
particularly affected the higher classes of Muslims who suffered 
enormously by the extensive confiscation of property inflicted upon them 
by the British as a punishment for their suspected complicity in the 
Mutiny. By the end of the Mutiny the Musalmans, high and low, were 
brought down by these series of events to the lowest depths of broken 
pride, black dispair and general penuary. Without prestige, without 
education and without rescurces the Muslim were left to face the 
Hindus. The British, pledged to neutrality, were indifferent to the 
result of the struggle between the two communities. The end is that 
the Musalmans are completely worsened in the struggle. By the 
British conquest a complete political revolution has taken place 
between the relative position of the two communities. For 600 years 
the Musalmans had been the masters of Hindus. The British occu- 
pation brought them down to the level of the Hindus. From masters 
to fellow subjects was degradation enough. But a change from the 
status of fellow subjects to that of subjects of the Hindus is really 
humiliation. Is it unnatural, ask the Muslims, if they seek an escape 
from so intolerable a position by the creation of separate national 
States in which the Muslims can find a peaceful home and in which 
the conflicts between a ruling race and a subject race can find no 
place to plague their lives ? 


must prove its bona> fides by showing its readinesss to recognize the 
other communities as free and equal partners. What is the test of 
such recognition ? It seems to me that there can be only one namely 
agreeing to share power with the effective representatives of the 
minority communities. Is the Congress prepared for it ? Every one 
knows the answer. The Congress is not prepared to share power 
with a member of a community who does not owe allegiance to the 
Congress. Allegiance to Congress is a condition precedent to shanng 
power. It seems to be a rule with the Congress that it allegiance to 
Congress is not forthcoming from a community then that community 
must be excluded from political power. 

Exclusion from political power is the essence of the distinction 
between ruling race and subject race and inasmuch as the 
Congress maintained this principle it must be said that this 
distinction was enforced by the Congress while it was in the 
saddle. The Musalmans may well complain that they have 
already suffered enough and that this reduction to the position of 
a subject race is like the proverbial last straw. Their decline and fall 
in India began ever since the British occupation of the country* 
Every change, executive, administrative or legal, introduced by the 
British has inflicted a series of blows upon the Muslim Community. 
The Muslim rulers of India had allowed the Hindus to retain their 
law in civil matters. But they had abrogated the Hindu criminal 
law and had made the Muslim criminal law the law of the state 
applicable to all Hindus as well as Muslims. The first thing the 
British did was to displace gradually the Muslim criminal law by 
another of their making until the process was finally completed by 
the enactment of Macauley's Penal Code. This was the first blow 
to the prestige and position of the Muslim Community in India. This 
was followed by the abridgement of the field of application of the 
Shariat or the Muslim Civil Law. Its application was restricted 
to matters concerning personal relations such as marriage and 
inheritance and then only to the extent permitted by the British. Side 
by side came the abolition in 1837 of Persian as the official language 
of the Court and of the general administration and the substitution of 
the English and the vernaculars in place of Persian. Then came 
the abolition of tire Quazis who during the Muslim rule administered 
the ijftarilt la theirjplaces were apppointed law officers and judges 


who might be of any religion but who got the right of interpreting 
Muslim law and whose decisions became binding on Muslims. These were 
severe blows to the Muslims. As a result the Muslims found their prestige 
gone, their laws replaced, their language shelved and their education shorn 
of its monetary value. Along with these came more palpable blows in 
the shape of annexation of Sind and Oudh and the Mutiny. The last 
particularly affected the higher classes of Muslims who suffered 
enormously by the extensive confiscation of property inflicted upon them 
by the British as a punishment for their suspected complicity in the 
Mutiny. By the end of the Mutiny the Musalmans, high and low, were 
brought down by these series of events to the lowest depths of broken 
pride, black dispair and general penuary. Without prestige, without 
education and without rescurces the Muslim were left to face the 
Hindus. The British, pledged to neutrality, were indifferent to the 
result of the struggle between the two communities. The end is that 
the Musalmans are completely worsened in the struggle. By the 
British conquest a complete political revolution has taken place 
between the relative position of the two communities. For 600 years 
the Musalmans had been the masters of Hindus. The British occu- 
pation brought them down to the level of the Hindus. From masters 
to fellow subjects was degradation enough. But a change from the 
status of fellow subjects to that of subjects of the Hindus is really 
humiliation. Is it unnatural, ask the Muslims, if they seek an escape 
from so intolerable a position by the creation of separate national 
States in which the Muslims can find a peaceful home and in which 
the conflicts between a ruling race and a subject race can find no 
place to plague their lives ? 


There seem to be three reasons present to the mind of 
tfw Hindus who are ofjposing this scheme of Pakistan* 
They are as under : 

7. Because it involves the brvaking-up of the unity of 

"2. Because it weakens the defences of India- 
3- Because it fails to solve the communal problem- 
Is there any substance in these objections ? This Part is 
concerned with an examination of the validity of these olyections* 


Before the Hindus complain about the destruction of the unity 
of India let them make certain that the unity they are harping upon 
does exist. What unity is there between Pakistan and Hindustan ? 

Those Hindus who maintain the affirmative chiefly rely upon the 
fact that the areas which the Muslims want to be separated from India 
have always been a part of India. Historically this is no doubt true. 
Not only was this area a part of India when Chandragupta was the 
ruler ; it was also a part of India when Hweri Thasang, the Chinese 
pilgrim visited India in the 7th Century A. D. In his diary Hwen 
Thasang has recorded that India was divided into 5 divisions or to 
use his language there were 'five Indies'* (i) Northern India, 
(2) "Western India, (3) Central India, (4) Eastern India and 
(5) Southern India and that these five divisions contained 80 
kingdoms. According to Hwen Thasang Northern India comprised 
the Punjab proper, including Kashmir and the adjoining hill states 
with the whole of Eastern Afghanistan beyond the Indus, and the 
present Cis-Satlej States to the West of the Sarasvati river. Thus 
in Northern India there were not only included the districts of 
Kabul, Jallabad, Peshwar, Gazni and Banu, but they were all subject 
to the ruler of Kapisa, who was a Hindu Kshatriya and whose 
capital was most probably at Charikar, 27 miles from Kabul. In 
the Punjab proper the hilly districts of Taxila, Singhapura, Urasa 
Punch and Rajaori, were subject to the Raja of Kashmir ; while 
the whole of the plains, including Multan and Shorkot were dependent 

* Cunninghams' Ancient Geography of India. ("Ed. Majumdar) pp. 13-14. 
The writers of the Puranaa divided India into 9 divisions. 


the ruler of Taki or Sangala, near Lahore. Such was the extent 
of the northern boundary of India at the time when Hwen Thasang 
came on his pilgrimage. But as Prof. Toynbee points out. 

" We must be on our guard against * historical sentiment ', that 
is, against arguments taken from conditions which once existed 
or were supposed to exist, but which are no longer real at the 
present moment. They are most easily illustrated by extreme 
examples. Italian newspapers have discribed the annexation of 
Tripoli as recovering the soil of the Fatherland because it was 
once a province of the Roman Empire ; and the entire region of 
Macedonia is claimed by Greek Chauvinists on the one hand, 
because it contains the site of Pella, the cradle of Alexander the 
Great in the fourth century B. C. and by Bulgarians on the other, 
, . because Ohhrida, in the opposite corner, was the capital of the 
Bulgarian Tzardom in the tenth century A. D. though the drift of 
time has burried the tradition of the latter almost as deep as the 
achievements of the ' Emathian Conqueror ' on which the modern 
Greek nationalists insists so strongly. " 

The same logic applies here. Here also agruments are taken 
from conditions which once existed but which are no longer real 
and which omit to take into consideration later facts which history 
has to record during practically one thousand years after the 
return of Hwen Thasang. 

It is true that when Hwen Thasang came, not only Punjab 
but what is now Afghanistan was part of India and further the 
people of Punjab and Afghanistan were either Vedic or Buddhists 
by religion. But what has happened since Hwen Thasang 
left India ? 

The most important thing that has happened is the invasion of 
India by the Muslim hordes from the North-west. The first Muslim 
invasion of India was by the Arabs who were led by Mahommad bin 
Quasim. It took place in 71 1 A. D. and resulted in the conquest of 
Sind. This first Muslim invasion did not result in a permanent 
occupation of the country because the Caliphate of Bagdad by whose 
command the invasion had taken place was obliged to 
its direct control from this distant province of Sind by the 

.---V.. .-..-V ' '-"-- --, .-i. -L-- - - i 1 .1 '...ii n... .1 I. i ' i" i ", J. 1 ' 1 *"" 

*Sind wa reoc<mpid bp Mohammed Ghpru 


middle of the gth century A. D. But soon after this withdrawal there 
began a series of terrible invasions by Muhamad of Gazni in 1001 A. D. 
Muhamad died in 1030 A. D. But within the short span of 30 yeara 
he invaded India 1 7 times. He was followed by Mahommed Ghori 
who began his carreer as an invader in 1173. He was killed in 1206. 
For thirty years had Muhamad of Gazni ravaged India and for 
thirty years Mahommed Ghori harried the satne country in the same 
way. Then followed the incursions of the Mogal hordes of Chingiz 
Khan. They first came in 1221. They then only wintered in India 
but did not enter it. Twenty years after they marched on Lahore 
and sacked it. Of their inroads the most terrible was under Taimur 
in 1398. Then comes on the scene a new invader in the person of 
Babar who invaded India in 1526. The invasions of India did not 
stop with that of Babar. There occurred two more invasions. In 
1738 Nadirshah's invading host swept over Punjab like a flooded river 
" furious as the ocean ". He was followed by Ahmadsha Abdalli 
who : invaded India in 1761, smashed the forces of the Marathas at 
Panipat and crushed for ever the attempt of the Hindus to gain the 
ground which they had lost to their Muslim invaders. 

These MusHm invasions* were not undertaken merely out of 
lust for loot or conquest. There was another object behind them. 
The expedition against Sind by Mahommad bin Quasim was of 
a punitive character and was undertaken to punish Raja Dahir 
of Sind who had refused to make restitution for the seizure of an 
Arab ship at Debul, one of the sea-port towns of Sind. But there is 
no doubt that striking a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of 
Hindus and establishing Islam in India was also one of the aims 
of this expedition. In one of his despatches-to Hajjaj, Mahommad 
bin Quasim is quoted to have said : 

. " The nephew of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principle officers 
have been dispatched, and the infidels converted to Islam or 
destroyed. Instead of idol-ternples, mosques and other places 
of worship have been created, the Khutbah is read, the call to 
prayers is raised, so that devotions are performed at stated hours. 
The Takbir and praise to the Almighty God are offered every 
morning and evening/' 

*What follows regarding tlie objects and methods of the Muali^i invaders 
been taken almoai rerbatim from " Indian Islam " by Dr, Tirs* especial^ 

,, 7 , 


After receiving the above dispatch, which had been forwarded 
with the head of the Raja, Hajjaj sent the following reply to his 
general : 

'* Except that you give protection to all, great and small alike, 
make no difference between enemy and friend. God says, " Give no 
quarter to infidels but cut their throats/' Then know that this is the 
command of the great God. You shall not be too ready to grant 
protection, because it will prolong your work. After this give no 
quarter to any enemy except those who are of rank." 

Muhamad of Gazni also looked upon his numerous invasions 
of India as the waging of a holy war. A Utbi the historian of 
Muhamad in describing his raids writes : 

" He demolished idol temples and established Islam. He captur- 
ed cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the 

idolators, and gratifying Muslims. ' He then returned home and 

promulgated accounts of the victories obtained for Islam and 

vowed that every year he would undertake a holy war against 

Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same holy zeal in his 
invasions of India. Hasan Nizami the historian describes his 
work in the following terms : 

' He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of 
infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the 
thorn of God-plurality and the impurity of idol- worship, and by his 
royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple standing.' 

Timur has in his Memoir explained what led him to invade 
India. He says : 

" My object in the invasions of Hindustan is to lead a campaign 
against the infidels, to convert them to the true faith according to 
the Command of Mahammad (on whom and his family be the bless- 
ing and peace of God), to purify the land from the defilement of 
misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols, 
whereby we shall beGhazts and Mujhkids, companions and soldiers 
of the faith before God/' 

These invasions of India by Muslims were as much invasions 
of India as ttiey were wars among the Muslims themselves. This 

hidden because the invaders are all lumped 
Muslims without distinction. But as a matter of feet 


they were Tartars, Afghans and Mongols. Mahomed of Gazni 
was a Tartar, Mahomed of Ghori was an Afghan, Timur was 
a Mongol, Baber was a Tartar, Nadirshah and Ahmedshah Abdali 
were Afghans. In invading India the Afghan was out to destroy 
the Tartar and the Mongol was out to destroy both the Tartar as 
well as the Afghan. They were not a loving family cemented by 
the feeling of Islamic brotherhood. They were deadly rivals of 
one another and their wars were often wars of mutual extermination. 
What is however important to bear in mind is that with all their 
internecine conflicts they were all united by one common objective 
and that was to destroy the Hindu faith. 

The methods adopted by the Muslim invaders of India are 
not less significant for the subsequent history of India than the 
object of their invasions. 

Muhammad Bin Quassim's first act of religious zeal was 
forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city of Debul ; 
but on discovering that they objected to this sort of conversion, he 
then proceeded to put all above the age of 17 to death, and to 
order all others, with women and children, to be led into slavery. 
The temple of the Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was 
divided equally among the soldiers, after one-fifth, the legal portion 
for the government, had been set aside. 

Mahomed of Gazni from the first adopted those plans that 
would strike terror into the hearts of the Hindus. After the defeat 
of Raja Jaipal in A. D. 1001 Mahomed ordered that Jaipal "be 
paraded about in the streets so that his sons and chieftains might 
see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace; and that 
the fear of Islam might fly abroad through the country of the 

" The slaughtering of 'infidels' seemed to be one thing that gave 
Mahomed particular pleasure. In one attack on Chand Rai, in A. D. 
1019, many infidels were slain or taken prisoners, and the Muslims 
paid no regard to booty until they had satiated themselves with the 
slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire/ The 
historian naively adds that the elephants of the Hindu armies came 
to Mahmud of their own accord, leaving idols, preferring the 
service of the religion of Islam." 

a&tov cA&fi AGAINST >A|STA^ [part i* 

Hot infrequently the slaughter of the enemy gave a great 
setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus, as in the conquest 
of Bihar by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji. When he took a certain 
place, the Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs us that 

44 great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the 
inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put 

to death. Large numbers of books were found but no one 

could explain their contents as all the men had been killed the 
whole fort and city being a place of study. 

44 Of the destruction of temples and the desecration of idols we 
have an abundance of evidence. Muhammad bin Quassim carried 
out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind, we have seen, 
|^|| he. made an exception of the famous temple at Multan for 
^Ipfii^ of revenue, as this temple was a place of resort for pilgrims, 
who made large gifts to the idol. Nevertheless while he thus 
satisfied his avarice by letting the temple stand, he gave vent to 
his malignity by having a piece of cow's flesh tied around the 
neck of the idol. 

" Minhaj-as-Siraj further tells how Mahmud became widely 
known for having destroyed as many as a thousand temples, and 
of his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying 
off its idol, which he asserts was broken into four parts. " One part 
he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Gaziii, one he placed at the 
entrance of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the 
fourth to Medina/' 

It is said by Lane Poole that Mahomed of Gazni "who 
had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war against 
the infidels of " Hindustan " could not rest from his idol-breaking 
campaign so long as the temple of Somnath remained inviolate. 
It was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his 
career, undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan 
to Anhalwara on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at 
last the famous temple. 

" There, a hundred thousand pilgrims were wont to assemble, a 
thousand Brahmins served the temple and guarded its treasures, and 
hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gates. Within 
stood the famous linga, a rude pillar stone adorned with gems and 
* lighted by jewelled condelbra which were reflected in rich hangings, 
"" L with precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine 
were swarmed with incredulous Brahmins, 


mocking the vain arrogance of foreign infidels whom the God of 
Somnath would assuredly consume. The foreigners, nothing daunted, 
scaled the walls ; the God remained dumb to the urgent appeals of 
his servants ; fifty thousand Hindus suffered for their faith and the 
sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of the true believers. The great 
stone was cast down, and its fragments were carried off to grace 
the coqueror's palace. The temple gates were set up at Gaziii and 
a million pounds' worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast."* 

Muhammad Ghori one of the enthusiastic successors of Mahmud 
of Gazni, in his conquest of Ajmir 

"destroyed pillars and foundations of the idol-temples, and built 
in their stead mosques and colleges, and the precepts of Islam and 
the customs of the law were divulged and established. At Delhi, 
the city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idol worship, and 
in the sanctuaries of the images of the gods mosques were raised by 
the worshippers of the one God." 

Qutb-ud-Din Aybak also is said to have destroyed nearly 
a thousand temples, and then raised mosques on their foundations. 
The same author states that he built the Jami Masjid, Delhi, and 
adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples 
which had been demolished by elephants, and covered it with 
inscriptions (from the Quran) containing the divine commands. 
We have further evidence of this harrowing process having been 
systematically employed from the inscription extant over the 
eastern gateway of this same mosque at Delhi, which relates that 
the materials of 27 idol temples were used in its constructions 

" Ala-ud-Din, in his zeal to build n second Minar to the Jami 
Masjid, to rival the One built of Qutb-ud-din, is said by Ami* Khusru 
not only to have dug stones out of the hills, but to have demolished 
temples of the infidels to furnish a supply. In his consequents of 
South India the the destruction of temples was carried out by 
" Ala-ud-Din " as it had been in the north by his predecessors. 

" The Sultan Firoz Shah, in his Futuhat, graphically relates how 
he treated Hindus who had dared to built new temples. When 
they did this in the city (Delhi) and the environs, in opposition to 

** Medieval Xodt*.* V 


the law of the Prophet, which declares that such are not to be 
tolerated, under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices, I killed 
these leaders of infidelity and punished others with stripes, until 
this abuse was entirely abolished and where infidels and idolaters 
worshipped idols, Musalmans now by God's mercy perform their 
devotions to the true God." 

Even in the reign of Shah Jahan we read of the destruction 
of the temples that the Hindus had started to rebuild, and the 
account of this direct attack on the piety of the Hindus is thus 
solemnly recorded in the Badhshah-namah : 

"It had been brought to the notice of His Majesty, says the 
historian, that during the late reign (of Akbar) many idol-temples 
had been begun but remained unfinished at Benares, the great 
stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of 
completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders 
that at Benares and throughout all his dominions in every place all 
temples that had been begun should be cast down. It was reported 
from the Province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been 
destroyed in the district of Benares/' 

It was left to Aurangzeb to make a final attempt to overthrow 
idolatory. The author of Ma ' athir i-Alamgiri, dilates upon his 
efforts to put down Hindu teaching, and his destruction of temples 
in the following terms : 

" In April, A. D. 1669, Aurangzib learned that in the provinces 
of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish 
Brahmins were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their 
schools, and that learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there 

from long distances The ' Director of the Faith' consequently 

issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with 
a willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels ; and they were 
enjoined to put an entire stop to the teaching and practising of 
idolatrous worship 

"Such invaders as Mahmud and Timur seem to have been more 
concerned with iconoclasm, the collection of booty, the enslaving 
of captives, and the sending of infidels to hell with the ' proselytizing 
sword ' than they were with the conversion of them even by force* 
But when rulers were permanently established the winning oi 
converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was a part of tht 
state policy to establish Islam as the 'fldllP^n f the whole land." 


"Qutb-ud-Din, whose reputation for desroying temples was almost 
as great as that of Mahmud, in the latter part of the twelfth century 
and early years of the thirteenth, must have frequently resorted to 
force as an incentive to conversion. One instance may be noted : 
when he approached Koil (Aligrah) in A. D. 1 1 94, 'those of the garrison 
who were wise and acute were converted to Islam, but the others 
were slain with the sword ' ". 

Further examples of extreme measures employed to effect 
a change of faith are all too numerous. One pathetic case is 
mentioned in the time of the reign of Firuz Shah (A. D. 1351-1388). 
An old Brahmin of Delhi had been accused of worshipping idols 
in his house, and of even leading Muslim women to become 
infidels. He was sent for and his case placed before the judges, 
doctors, elders and lawyers. Their reply was that the provisions 
of the law were clear. The Brahmin must either become a Muslim 
or be burned. The true faith was declared to him and the right 
course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. " Consequently he 
was burned by the order of the Sultan", and the commentator adds, 
li Behold the Sultan's strict adherence to law and rectitude, how 
he would not deviate in the least from its decrees." 

"Not only was sluaghter of the infidels and the destruction of their 
temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam's contact with India, 
but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. 
The dividing up of booty was one of the special attractions, to the 
leaders as well as to the common soldiers in these expeditions. 
Mahmud seems to have made the slaughter of infidels, the destruction 
of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and the plundering of the 
wealth of the people, particularly of the temples and the priests, the 
main object of his raids. On the occassion of his first raid he is 
said to have taken much booty ; and half a million Hindus, 'beauti- 
ful men and women ', were reduced to slavery and taken back to 

When he later took Kanuaj, in A. D. 1017, he took so much 
booty and so many prisoners that ' the fingers of those who 
counted them would have tired.' The same authority describe$H|i^ 
commcm Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central Asia 

after the campaign of A. D. 1019. 

* * ' 
"The number of prisoners may be conceived; 

each was sold for from two to ten 


taken to Ghaznl, and merchants came from far distant cities 

to purchase them ; and the fair and the dark, the rich and the 

poor were commingled in one common slavery/' 

" In the year A. D. 1202, when Qutb-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, 
after the temples had been converted into mosques, and the very 
name of idolatry was annihilated, fifty thousand men came under 
the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with 
Hindus. " 

Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were caught in the 
din of war. But when there was no war the systematic abasement 
of the Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods adopted 
by the Muslim invaders. In the days of Alla-ud-Din at the beginning 
of the fourteenth century, the Hindus had in certain parts given the 
Sultan much trouble. So he determined to impose such taxes on 
them that they would be prevented from rising in rebellion. 

" The Hindu was to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, 
to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries 
of life." 

These edicts, says the historian of the period, 

" were so strictly carried out that the chaukidars and khuts and 
muqaddims were not able to ride on horseback, to find weapon, to 

wear fine clothes, or to indulge in betel No Hindu could hold up 

his head Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and 

chains were all employed to enforce payment. " 

44 The payment of the jizyah by the Hindus continued throughout 
the dominions of the sultans, emperors, and kings in various parts 
of India with more or less regularity, though often the law was in 
force in theory only ; since it depended entirely on the ability of 
the sovereign to enforce his demands. But, finally, it was abolished 
throughout the Mughul Empire in the ninth year of the enlightened 
Akbar's reign (A.D. 1665), after it had been accepted as a fundamen- 
tal part of Muslim government policy in India for a period of more 
than eight centuries. " 

Lane Poole says that 

"the Hindu was taxed to the extent of half the produce of his 
land, and had to pay duties on all his buffaloes, goats, and other 
milch-cattle. The taxes were to be levied equally on rich and poor, 
at so much per acre, so much per animal. Any collectors or 
officers taking were summarily dismissed and heavily 

punislfed with iSrarafci^in cars, the rack, imprisonment and chains' 


The new rules were strictly carried out, so that one revenue officer 
would string together 20 Hindu notables and enforce payment by 
blows. No gold or silver, not even the betel-nut, so cheering and 
stimulative to pleasures, was to be seen in a Hindu house, and the 
wives of the impoverished native officials were reduced to taking 
service in Muslim families. Revenue Officers came to be regarded 
as more deadly than the plague ; and to be a government clerk was 
disgrace worse than death, in so much that no Hindu would marry 
his daughter to such a man. " 

All this was not the result of mere caprice or moral perversion. 
On the other hand what was done was in accordance with the ruling 
ideas of the leaders of Islam in their broadest aspects. These ideas 
were well expressed by the Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan 
Alla-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus under 
Muslim law. *" 

The Kazi said : 

" They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer 
demands silver from them, they should without question, and with 
all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in 
their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide 

to receive it The clue subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited 

in this humble payment, and by this throwing of dirt into their 
mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for 
religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, < Keep 
them in subjection. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially 
a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the 
Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, 
plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ' Convert them to 
Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth 
and property. ' No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifah), to whose 
school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus; 
doctors of other schools allow no other alternative : but ' Death or 
Islam V 

Such is the story of this period of 762 years which elapsed 

between advent of Mahammud of Gazni and the return of 

Ahamadsha Abdali. 

How far is it open for the Hindus to say that Northern India 

is part of Aryavarta ? How far is it open to the Hindus to 


it belonged to them, therefore it must remain for ever an 
integral part of India ? Those who oppose separation and hold to 
the ' historic sentiment * arising out of an ancient fact that Northern 
India including Afghanistan was once part of India and that the 
people of that area were either Buddhists or Hindus, must be asked 
whether the events of these 762 years of incessant Muslim invasions, 
the object with which they were launched and the methods adopted 
by these invaders to give effect to their object ar to be treated as 
though they were matters of no account ? 

Apart JBrom other consequences which have flowed from them 
these invasions have in my opinion so profoundly altered the culture 
and character of the Northern areas which it is now proposed to be 
included in a Pakistan that there is not only no unity between that 
area and the rest of India but that there is as a matter of fact a real 
antipathy between the two. 

The first consequence of these invasions was the breaking up of 
the unity of Northern India with the rest of India, After his 
conquest of Northern India Mahomad of Gazni detached it from 
India and ruled it from Gazni. When Mohammad Ghori came in 
the field as a conqueror he again attached it to India and ruled it 
from Lahore and then from Delhi. Hakim, the brother of Akbar 
detached Kabul and Kandhar from Northern India. Akbar again 
attached it to Northern India. They remained attached until the 
death of Aurangzeb. They were again detached by Nadirshah in 
1738 and the whole of Northern India would have been severed from 
India had it not been for the check provided by rise of the Sikhs. 
Northern India therefore has been like a waggon which can be 
coupled or uncoupled according to the circumstances of the moment. 
If analogy is wanted the case of Alsace Lorraine could be cited* 
Alsace Lorraine was originally part of Germany, like the rest of 
Switzerland and the Low countries. It continued to be so till 1680, 
when it was taken by France and incorporated into French territory* 
It belonged to France till 1871, when it was detached by Germany 
and made part of her territory. In 1918 it was again detached from 
Germany and made part of France. In 1940 it is detached from 

part of German y. 

chap. IV] tefcEAK-tJP OF UNITY 

The methods adopted by the invaders have left behind th&fltl 
their aftermath. One aftermath is the bitterness between the Hindus 
and the Muslims which they have caused. This bitterness, between the 
two, is so deep-seated that a century of political life has not succeeded in 
assuaging it, nor making people forget it. Accompanied as the 
invasions were with the destruction of temples and forced conversions, 
with the spoliation of property, with the slaughter, enslavement 
and abasement of men, women and children, what wonder if the 
memory of these invasions has ever remained green, as a source of 
pride to the Muslims and as a source of shame to the Hindus ? 
But these things apart, this north-west corner of India has been 
a theatre in which a stern drama has been played. Muslim hordes, in 
wave after wave, have surged down into this area and from thence 
scattered themselves in spray over the rest of India. These waves 
reached the rest of India in thin currents. In time, they also recede^ 
from their furthest marks. But while they lasted they left a d^pSjjl 
deposit of Islamic culture over the original Aryan culture in this north- 
west corner of India which has given it a totally different colour, 
both in religious and political outlook. The Muslim invaders no 
doubt came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. 
But they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back 
burning a few temples on the way. That would have been 
a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. 
They did a positive act, namely to plant the seed of Islam. The 
growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sappling. 
It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in 
Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their 
silt more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering 
exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern 
India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just 
shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak. Sikhs no doubt .* 
became the political masters of Northern India. But they did not 
gain back Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by 
which it was bound to the rest of India before Hwen Thasang. Tbe 
Sikhs coupled it back to India. But it remains like Alsace 
Lorraine politically detachable and spiritually alien so far as the 
rest of India is concerned. It is only an unimaginative person who 


could fell to take notice of these facts or insist in the face of them 
that Pakistan means breaking up into two what is one whole. 

What is the unity the Hindu sees between Pakistan and 
Hindustan ? If it is geographical unity then that is no unity. 
Geographical unity is unity intended by nature. But in building up 
a nationality on geographical unity it must be remembered that it is 
a case where Nature proposes and Man disposes. If it is unity in 
external things, such as ways and habits of life, that is no unity. 
Such unity is the result of exposure to a common environment. If it 
is administrative unity that again is no unity. The instance of Burma 
is in point. Aiakan and Tennarsarim were annexed in 1826 by the 
treaty of Yendabu. Pegu and Martabari were annexed in 1852. 
Upper Burma was annexed in 1 886. The administrative unity between 
India and Burma was forged in 1826. For over no years that 
administrative unity continued to exist. In 1937 the knot that tied 
the two together was cut asunder and nobody shed a tear over it. 
The unity between India and Burma was not less fundamental. If 
unity is to be of an abiding character it must be founded on a sense of 
kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short it must be spiritual. 
Judged in the light of these considerations, the unity between 
Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth. Indeed there is more spiritual 
unity between Hindustan and Burma than there is between 
Pakistan and Hindustan. And if the Hindus did not object to 
the severance of Burma from India it is difficult to understand how 
the Hindus can object to the severance of an area like Pakistan 
which, to repeat, is politically detachable from, socially hostile and 
spiritually alien to, the rest of India. 



How will the creation of Pakistan affect the question of the 
Defence of Hindustan ? The question is not a very urgent one. 
For there is no reason to suppose that Pakistan will be at war with 
Hindustan immediately it is brought into being. But as the 
question, is sure to be raised it is better to deal with it. 

The question may be considered under three heads : (i) Ques- 
tion of Frontiers, (2) Question of Resources and (3) Question 
of Armed Forces. 



It is sure to be urged by the Hindus that Pakistan leaves 
Hindustan without a scientific frontier. The obvious reply, of 
course, is that the Musalmans cannot be asked to give up their 
right to Pakistan, because it adversely affects the Hindus in the 
matter of their boundaries. But banter apart, there are really two 
considerations, which if taken into account, will show that the 
apprehensions of the Hindus in this matter are quite uncalled for. 

In the first place, can any country hope to have a frontier 
which may be called scientific ? As Mr. Davies, the author of 
" North- West Frontier " observes . 

" It would be impossible to demarcate on the North- West of our 
Indian Empire a frontier which would satisfy ethnological, political 
and military requirements. To seek for a zone which traverses 
easily definable geographical features ; which does not violate ethnic 
considerations by cutting through the territories of closely related 
tribes ; and which at the same time serves as a political boundary, 
is Utopian". 

CASfe AGAWsT jMJdstfAi* [part n 

As a matter of history there has been no one scientific 
boundary for India and different persons have advocated different 
boundaries for India. The boundaries question has given rise to 
two policies, the " Forward " Policy and the " Back to the Indus " 
Policy. The " Forward " Policy had a greater and a lesser 
intent, to use the language of Sir George Macmunn. In its greater 
intent it meant active control in the affairs of Afghanistan as an 
JE/tat Tampion to India and the extension of Indian influence 
upto the Oxus. In its lesser intent it was confined to the 
absorption of the tribal hills between the administered territory 
(i.e. the Province of N.-W. F.) and Afghanistan as defined by 
the Durand line and the exercise of British control right up 
to that line. The greater intent of the Forward Policy, as 
a basis for a safe boundary for India, has long been abandoned. 
Consequently there remain three possible boundary lines to* choose 
from : (i) the Indus River, (2) the present administrative boundry 
of the N.-W. F. and (3) the Durand Line. Pakistan will no 
doubt bring the boundary of Hindustan Back to the Indus, indeed 
behind the Indus, to the Sutlej. But this " Back to Indus " policy 
was not without its advocates. The greatest exponent of the Indus 
boundary was Lord Lawrence, who was stronlgy opposed to any 
forward move beyond the trans-Indus foot hills. He advocated meet- 
ing any invader in the valley of the Indus ; in his opinion it would 
be an act of folly and weakness to give battle at any great distance 
from our base ; and that the longer the distance an invading army 
has to march, through Afghanistan and the tribal country, the more 
harassed it would be. Others no doubt have pointed out that a river 
is a weak line of defence. But the principal reason for not retiring 
to the Indus boundary seems to lie elsewhere. Mr. Davies gives the 
real reason when he says that the 

" Back to Indufc " cry becomes absurd when It is examined from 
the point of view of the inhabitants of the modern North- West 
Frontier Province, Not only would withdrawal mean loss of 
prestige, but it would also be a gross betrayal of those peoples to 
whom we have extended our beneficent rule. " 

Jo jfaet, it is no use insisting that any particular boundry is the 
safest, for the simple reason that geographical conditions are not 


decisive in the world to-day and modern technique has robbed 
natural frontiers of much of their former importance, even 
where they are mighty mountains, the broadest streams, or seas 
or deserts. 

In the second place, it is always possible for nations with no 
natural boundaries to make good this defect. Countries are not want- 
ing which have no natural boundaries. Yet all have made good the 
deficiencies of nature, by creating artificial fortifications as barriers, 
which can be far more impregnable than natural barriers. There is 
no reason to suppose that the Hindus will not be able to accomplish 
what other countries similarly situated have done. Given the 
resources, Hindus need have no fear for want of a naturally safe 



More important than the question of a scientific frontier, is the 
question of resources. If resources are ample for the necessary 
equipment, then it is always possible to overcome the difficulties 
created by an unscientific or a weak frontier. We must therefore 
consider the comparative resources of Pakistan and Hindustan. 
The following figures are intended to convey an idea of then 
comparative resources : 

Resources of Pakistan. 


N.-W. F. 






















Total ,.. 288,998 80,283,331 60,56,38,996 




































Resources of Hindustan. 

C. P. & Berar 
U. P. 

Total 607,657 178,513,919 96,24,05,206 

These are gross figures. They are subject to certain additions 
and deductions. Revenues derived by the Central Government from 
Railways, Currency and Post and Telegraphs are not included in these 
figures, as it is not possible to ascertain how much is raised from each 
Province. When it is done, certain additions will have to be made to 
the figures under revenue. There can be no doubt that the share form 
these heads of revenue that will be come to Hindustan will be much 
larger than the share that will go to Pakistan. Just as additions 
will have to be made to these figures, so also deductions will have to 
be made from them. Most of these deductions will of course fall to 
the lot of Pakistan. As will be shown later some portion of the 
Punjab will have to be excluded from the scheme of Pakistan. 
Similarly some portion of Bengal will have to be excluded from the 
proposed Eastern Muslim State, although a district from Assam may 
have to be added to it. According to me 15 districts will have to 
be excluded from the Eastern Muslim State of Bengal and 
13 districts of the Punjab shall have to be excluded from Pakistan. 
What would be the reduction in the area, population and revenue, that 
would result from the exclusion of these districts, there is no sufficient 
data available to enable any one to give an exact idea. One may 
however hazard the guess that so far as the Punjab and Bengal are 

*Bevenues include both Revenue raised by Provincial Governments in the 
Provinces from provincial sources & bj the Central Government from Central 


concerned their revenues would be halved. What is lost by Pakistan 
by this exclusion, will of course be gained by Hindustan. To put it 
in concrete terms while the Revenues of Pakistan and the Eastern 
Muslim State will be 60 crores minus 24 crores, i. e. 36 crores, the 
Revenues of Hindustan will be about 96 crores plus 24 crores, 
i. e. 1 20 crores. 

The study of these figures, in the light of the observations 
I have made, will show that the resources of Hindustan are far 
greater than the resources of Pakistan, whether one considers the 
question in terms of area, population or revenue. There need, 
therefore, be no apprehension on the score of resources. Creation 
of Pakistan will not leave Hindustan in a weakened condition. 



The defence of a country does not depend so much upon its 
scientific frontier as it does upon its resources. But more than 
resources does it depend upon the fighting forces available to it. 

What are the fighting forces available to Pakistan and to 
Hindustan ? 

The Simon Commission pointed out, as a special feature of 
the Indian Defence Problem, that there were special areas which 
alone offered recruits to the Indian Army and that there were other 
areas which offered none or if at all very few. The following table, 
taken from the Report of the Commission, undoubtedly will come 
as a most disagreeable surprise to many Indians, who think and care 
about the defence of India. 

Areas of Recruitment. Number of Recruits drawn. 

1 N.-W. Frontier Province ... 5, 600 

2 Kashmir ... 6,500 

3 Punjab ... 86,000 

4 Baluchistan ... 3 

5 Nepal **, 19,000 


Areas of Recruitment. Number of Recruits drawn, 

6 United Provinces 16,500 

7 Rajputana 7,000 

8 Central India 200 

9 Bombay 7,000 

10 Central Provinces 100 

11 Bihar & Orissa 300 

12 Bengal Nil 

13 Assam Nil 

14 Burma 3 ; ooo 

15 Hyderabad 700 

1 6 Mysore 100 

17 Madras 4,000 

1 8 Miscellaneous 1,900 

Total ... 158,200 

The Simon Commission found that this state of affairs was 
natural to India, and in support of it, cited the following figures of 
recruitment from the different Provinces of India during the 
great war especially because " it cannot be suggested that any 
discouragement was offered to recruitment in any area " : 



United Provinces 

North- West Frontier 
* Burma 

Bihar & Orissa 
Central Provinces 


Total . 742,053 414,493 1,156,546 


Recruit g 










































This data reveals in a striking manner that the fighting forces 
available for the defence of India mostly come from area which are 
to be included in Pakistan. From this it may be argued, that 
without Pakistan, Hindustan cannot defend itself. 

The facts brought out by the Simon Commission are of course 
beyond question. But they cannot be made the basis of a conclusion, 
such as is suggested by the Simon Commission, namely that only 
Pakistan can produce soldiers and that Hindustan cannot. That 
such a conclusion is quite untenable will be seen from the following 

In the first place what is regarded by the Simon Commission 
as something peculiar to India is not quite so peculiar. What 
appears to be peculiar is not due to any inherent defect in the people. 
The peculiarity arises, because of the policy of recruitment followed 
by the British Government for years past. The official explanation 
of this predominance in the Indian Army of the men of the North- 
West is that they belong to the Martial Classes. But Mr. Chaudhari* 
has demonstrated by unimpeachable data, that this explanation is far 
from being true. He has shown that the predominance in the 
Army of the men of the North- West took place as early as the 
Mutiny of 1857, some 20 years before the theory of Martial and 
Non-martial Classes was projected in an indistinct form for the first 
time in 1879 by the Special Army Committee f appointed in that 
year, and that their predominance had nothing to do with their 
alleged fighting qualities but was due to the fact that they helped 
the British to suppress the Mutiny in which the Bengal Army was 
So completely involved. To quote Mr. Chaudhari : 

" The pre-Mutiny army of Bengal was essentially a Brahmin and 
Khattriya army of the Ganges basin. All the three Presidency 
Armies of those days, as we have stated in the first part of this 

* See bis series of Articles on " The Martial Races of India " published in the Modern 
Review for July 1930, September 1930, January 1931 and February 1931. 

f The Questionnaire circulated by the Committee included the following question i 4< If 
an efficient and available reserve of the Indian Army is considered necessary for the safety of 
the Empire, should it not be recruited and maintained from those parts of the country which 
give us best soldiers, rather than amongst the weakest and least warlike races of India"? .... 

HINDU CASE AGAlKSt fA^ISfAN jjpatt 11 

article, were In a T sense quite representative of the military poten- 
tialities of the areas to which they belonged, though none of them 
could, strictly speaking, be correctly described as national armies 
of the provinces concerned, as there was no attempt to draw upon 
any but the traditional martial elements of the population* But 
they all got their recruits mainly from their natural areas of 
recruitment, viz., the Madras Army from the Tamil and Telugu 
countries, the Bombay Army from Western India, and the Bengal 
Army from Bihar and U. P. and to a very limited extent from 
Bengal. There was no official restriction on the enrolment of men 
of any particular tribe, or caste or region, provided they were 
otherwise eligible. Leaving aside for the moment the practice 
of the Bombay and the Madras Armies, the only exception to 
this general rule in the Bengal Army was that which applied to the 
Punjabis and Sikhs, who, inspite of their magnificent military 
traditions, were not given a fair representation in the Army of 
Northern India. Their recruitment, on the contrary, was placed 
under severe restrictions by an order of the Government, which 
laid down that ' the number of Punjabis in a regiment is never 
to exceed 200, nor are more than 100 of them to be Sikhs'. It was 
only the revolt of the Hindustani regiments of the Bengal Army 
that gave an opportunity to the Punjabis to rehabilitate themselves 
in the eyes of the British authorities. Till then, they remained 
suspect and under a ban, and the Bengal Army on the eve of the 
Mutiny was mainly recruited from Oudh, North and South Bihar, 
especially the latter, principally Shahabad and Bhojpur, the Doab 
of the Ganges and Jumna and Rohilkhund. The soldiers recruited 
from these areas were mostly high-caste men, Brahmins of 
all denominations, Chhatrees, Rajputs and Ahirs. The average 
proportion in which these classes were enrolled in a regiment was : 
(i) Brahmin 7/24, (2) Rajputs , Inferior Hindus , Musalmans , 
Punjabees . 

" To this army, the area which now-a-days furnishes the greatest 
number of soldiers the Punjab, Nepal, N.W. F. Province, the hill 
tracts of Kumaon and Garhwal, Rajputana, furnished very few 
recruits or none at all. There was practical exclusion in it of all the 
famous fighting castes of India, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Punjabi Musalmans, 
JDogras, Jats, Pathans, Garhwalis, Rajputana Rajputs, Kumaonis, 
Gujars, all the tribes and septs, in fact, which are looked upon today 
as a tower of strength of the Indian Army, A single year and a 
single rebellion was, however, to change all this. The Mutiny, which 
broke out Iff 1857, blew up the old Bengal Army and brought into 


existence a Punjabized and barbarized army, resembling the Indian 
Army of to-day in broad lines and general proportions of its 

"The gap created by the revolt of the Hindustani regiments 
(of the Bengal Army) were at once filled up by Sikhs and other 
Punjabis, and hillmen eager for revenge and for the loot of the cities 
of Hindustan. They had all been conquered and subjugated by the 
British with the help of the Hindustani soldiers, and in their 
ignorance, they regarded the Hindustanis, rather than the handful 
of British, as their real enemies. This enmity was magnificently 
exploited by the British authorities in suppressing the Mutiny. 
When the news of the enlistment of Gurkhas reached Lord Dalhousie 
in England he expressed great satisfaction and wrote to a friend : 
' Against the Oude Sepoys they may confidently be expected to 
fight like devils'. And after the Mutiny, General Mansfield, 
the Chief of the Staff of the Indian Army, wrote about the 
Sikhs : ' It was not because they loved us, but because they hated 
Hindustan and hated the Bengal Army that the Sikhs had flocked 
to our standard instead of seeking the opportunity to strike again for 
their freedom. They wanted to revenge themselves and to gain 
riches by the plunder of Hindustani cities. They were not attracted 
by mere daily pay, it was rather the prospect of wholesale plunder 
and stamping on the heads of their enemies. In short, we turned to 
profit the espirit de corps of the old Khalsa Army of Ranjit Singh, in 
the manner which for a time would most effectually bind the Sikhs 
to us as long as the active service against their old enemies may 
last '. 

" The relations thus established were in fact to last much longer. 
The services rendered by the Sikhs and Gurkhas during the Mutiny 
were not forgotten and henceforward the Punjab and Nepal had the 
place of honour in the Indian Army. " 

That Mr. Chaudhari is right when he says that it was the 
Mutiny of 1857 which was the real cause of the preponderance in 
the Indian Army of the men of the North-West is beyond the 
possibility of doubt. Equally incontrovertible is the view of 
Mr. Chaudhari that this preponderance of the men of the North- West 
is not due to their native superiority in fighting qualities, as the same 
is amply borne out by the figures which he has collected, showing 
the changes in the composition of the Indian Infantry before the 
Mutiny and after the Mutiny. 


Percentage of men from different Parts 


North-West India. 

U. P., Bihar. 



L Punjab, N. W. F., 

II. Nepal, Garhwal, 


Less than 10 


Not less 
than 90 

































These figures show that in 1856, one year before the Mutiny, 
the men from the North-West were a negligible factor in the 
Indian Army. But in 1858 one year after the Mutiny they had 
acquired a dominant position which has never received a set-back, 

It will thus be seen that the distinction between martial and 
non-martial classes, which was put forth for the first time in 1879, 
as a matter of principle, which was later on insisted upon as 
a matter of serious consideration by Lord Roberts* and which was 
subsequently recognised by Lord Kitchner as a principle governing 
recruitment to the Indian Army had nothing to do with the origin 
of this preponderance of the men of the North-West in the Indian 
Army. No doubt, the accident that the people from North West 
India had the good luck of being declared by the Government as 
belonging to the martial class, while most of the classes coming 
from the rest of India had the ill luck of being declared as belong- 
ing to the non-martial class, had important consequences. Being 

* In his * Forty-One Years * he wrote : " Each cold season, I made long tours in order to 
acquaint myself with the needs and capabilities of the men of the Madras Army. I tried 
hard to discover in them those fighting qualities which had distinguished their forefathers 
during the wars of the last and the beginning of the present century . . . And I was forced 
to the conclusion that the ancient military spirit had died in them, as it had died in the 
ordinary Hindustani of Bengal and the Mahratta of Bombay, and that they could no longer 
with safety be pitted against warlike races, or employed outside the limit of Southern 


regularly employed in the Army the people of North- West India 
came to look upon service in the army as an occupation with a 
security and a career which was denied to men from the rest of 
India. The large number of recruits drawn from North- West 
India therefore indicates nothing more than this namely, owing to 
the policy of the British Government, Army has become their 
occupation and if people in other parts of India do not readily come 
forth to enlist in the Army the reason is that Government did not 
allow them to make service in the Army as their occupation. It 
must be noted that occupation tends to become hereditary and that 
the most difficult thing for a man to do is to take to a new 

This division between martial and non-martial classes is 
of course a purely arbitrary and artificial distinction. It is as 
foolish as the Hindu theory of caste, making birth instead of worth 
the basis for recognition. At one time the Government insisted 
that the distinction they had adopted was a real distinction arid 
that in terms of fighting qualities it meant so much fighting value. 
In fact, this was their justification for recruiting more men from the 
North- West of India. That this distinction has nothing to do 
with any difference in fighting qualities has now been admitted. Sir 
Phillip Chetwode,* late Commander-in-Chief of India, broadcasting 
from London on the constitntion of the Indian Army, took pains 
to explain that the recruitment of a larger proportion of it from 
the Punjab did not mean that the people of the Peninsula were 
without martial qualities. Sir Phillip Chetwode explained that the 
reason why men of the North were largely recruited for the Indian 
Army was chiefly climatic, as the men from the South cannot 
stand the extremes of heat and cold of North India. No race 
can be permanently without martial spirit. Martial spirit is not 
a matter of native instinct. It is a matter of training and anydody 
can be trained to it. 

But apart from this, there is enough fighting material in 
Hindustan besides what might be produced by special training. 
There are the Sikhs, about whose fighting qualities nothing 
need be said. There are the Rajputs who are even now included 

^Indian Social Reformer, January 27 tb, 1040. 


in the category of Martial classes. In addition to these there are 
the Marathas who have proved their calibre as a fighting race 
during the last European Wan Even the people of the Madras 
Presidency can be depended upon for military purposes. Speaking 
of the Madrasis as soldiers, General Sir Frederick P. Haines, at 
one time Commander-in-Chief in India observed : 

" It has been customary to declare that the Madras Army is 
composed of men physically inferior to those of the Bengal Army, 
and if stature alone be taken into consideration, this is true. It is 
also said that by the force of circumstances the martial feeling and 
the characteristics necessary to the real soldiers are no longer to be 
found in its ranks. I feel bound to reject the above assertions and 
others which ascribe comparative inefficiency to Madras troops. 
It is true that in recent years they have seen but little service ; for 
with the exception of the sappers, they have been specially excluded 
from all participation in work in the field. I cannot admit for one 
moment that anything has occurred to disclose the fact that the 
Madras Sepoy is inferior as a fighting man. The facts of history 
warrant us in assuming the contrary. In drill training and discipline, 
the Madras Sepoy is inferior to none ; while in point of health, as 
exhibited by returns, he compares favourably with his neighbours. 
This has been manifested by the sappers and their followers in the 
Khyber; and the sappers are of the same race as the sepoys. " 

Hindustan need have therefore no apprehension regarding 
the supply of an adequate fighting force from among its own people. 
The sepration of Pakistan cannot weaken her in that respeet. 

The Simon Commission drew attention to three features of the 
Indian Army, which struck them as being special and peculiar to 
India. It pointed out that the duty of the Army in India was 
two-fold ; firstly, to prevent the independent tribes on the Indian 
side of the Afghan frontier from raiding the peaceful inhabitants 
of the plains below. Secondly, to protect India against invasion 
by countries lying behind and beyond this belt of unorganized 
territories. The Commission took note of the fact that from 1850 
to 1922 there were 72 expeditions against the independent tribes, an 
Average of one a year, and also of the fact that the countries behind 
and beyond this belt of unorganized territory lies the direction from 
which tferowghoat the ages, the danger to India's territorial 
integrity has corns " a quarter occupied by ** States which according 


to the Commission are not members of the League of the Nations " 
and therefore, a great danger to India now than before. The 
Commission insisted on emphasizing that these two facts constituted 
a peculiar feature of the problem of military defence in India and 
so far as the urgency and extent of the problem is concerned they 
are " without parallel elsewhere in the Empire, and constituted 
a difficulty in developing self-government which never arose in any 
comparable degree in the case of the self-governing Dominions." 

As a second unique feature of the Indian Army, the Com- 
mission observed : 

" The Army in India is not only provided and organized to 
ensure against external dangers of a wholly exceptional character: 
it is also distributed and habitually used throughout India for the 
purpose of maintaining or restoring internal peace. In all countries 

the military is not normally emploj'ed in this way, and 

certainly is not organized for this purpose. But the case of India 
is entirely different. Troops are employed many times a year to 
prevent internal disorder and, if necessary, to quell it. Police 
forces, admirably organized as they are, cannot be expected in all 
cases to cope with the sudden and violent outburst of a mob driven 
frantic by religious frenzy. It is, therefore, well understood in 
India both by the police and by the military-and, what is even 
more to the point, by the public at large that the soldiers may have 
to be sent for ... This use of the Army for the purpose of maintain- 
ing or restoring internal order was increasing rather than diminish- 
ing, and that on these occasions the practically universal request 
was for British troops. The proportion of the British to Indian 
troops allotted to this duty has in fact risen in the last quarter of 
a century* The reason of course is that the British soldier is a 
neutral, and is under no suspicion of favouring Hindus against 

Mahomedaiis or Mahomedans against Hindus Inasmuch as 

the vast majority of the disturbances which call for the intervention 
of the military have a communal or religious complexion, it is 
natural and inevitable that the intervention which is most likely to 
be authoritative should be that which has no bias, real or suspected, 
to either side. It is a striking fact in this connection that, while in 
regular units of the Army in India as a whole British soldiers are 
in a minority of about i to 2^, in the troops allotted for internal 
security the preponderance is re versed , and for this purpose a 


majority of British troops is employed in the troops ear-marked 
for internal security the proportion is about eight British to seven 
Indian soldiers." 

Commenting upon this feature of the Indian Army the Com- 
mission said : 

" When, therefore, one contemplates a future for India in 
which, in place of the existing Army organization, the country is 
defended and pacified by exclusively Indian units, just as Canada 
relies on Canadian troops and Ireland on Irish troops, it is essential 
to realize and bear in mind the dimensions and character of the 
Indian problem of internal order and the part which the British 
soldier at present plays (to the general satisfaction of the country- 
side) in supporting peaceful government." 

The third unique feature of the Indian Army which was 
pointed out by the Simon Commission is the preponderance in it 
of the men from the North West. The origin of this preponder- 
ance and the reasons underlying the official explanation given 
therefor have already been examined. 

But there is one more special feature of the Indian Army to 
which the Commission made no referance at all. The Commission 
either ignored it or was not aware of it. But it is such an 
important feature that it overshadows all the three features to 
which the Commission refers, in its importance and in its social and 
political consequences. 

It is a feature which, if widely known, will set many people 
furiously to think. It is sure to raise questions which may prove insolu- 
able and which may easily block the path of India's political progress- 
questions of far greater importance and complexity than the 
question relating to Indianization of the Army. 

This neglected feature relates to the communal composition 
of the Indian Army. Mr Chaudhari has collected the relevant 
data in his articles, already referred to, which throws a flood of light 
on this aspect of the Indian Army. The following table shows 
the proportion of soldiers serving in the Indian Infantry showing 
the ayes and th^ Community from whi<?li they are 

chap, v] WEAKENING OF THE CEfEKcfcS 75 


Area arid Communities. 

in 1914. 

in 1918. 

in 1919. 

in 1930. 


The Punjab, N. W. F. and 





1 Sikhs 
2 Punjabi Musalmaus 
3 Pathaug 

ia -2 






Nopal, Knmaotj, Gharwal 





1 Gurkhas 






Upper India 

1 U. P. Rajputs 
2 Hindustani .Musalmans 
3 Brahmins 










South India 





1 Marathas 
2 Madrasi Musalmans 
3 Tamils 








1 Buvniaiis ...! Nil. 




This table brings out in an unmistakable manner the fact that 
the communal composition of the Indian Army has been undergoing 
a profound change. This change is particularly noticeable after 1919. 
The figures show a phenomenal rise in the strength of the Punjabi 
Musalman and the Pathan. They also show a substantial reduction 
of the Sikhs from the first to the third place ; by the degradation of 
the Rajputs to the fourth place and by the closing of the ranks to the 
U. P. Brahmins, the Madrasi Musalmans and the Tamilians. 

A further analysis of the figures for 1 930, which discloses the 
communal composition of the Indian Infantry and Indian Cavalry, 
has been made by Mr. Chaudhari in the following table.* 

* This table shows the percentage of men of each eligible class in the Indian Infantry 
(82 active and 18 training battalions), the Indian Cavalry (21 regiments), and the 20 
battalions of Gurkha Infantry. This table does not include the Indian personnel of (a) the 
19 batteries of Indian Mountain Artillery, and (b) 3 regiments of Sappers and Miners, (o) the 
Indian Signal Corps, and (d) the Corps of Indian Pioneers, all of which are composed of 
different ^proportions of Punjabi Musalmans, Sikhs, Pathans, Hindustani Hindus and 
Musalmans, Madrasis of all classes and Hazra Afghans, either in class units or class 
companies. Except that some units in these arms of the service are composed of Madraais 
and Hazras, now enrolled in other units of the Indian Army, the class composition of 
these units does not materially f alter the proportion of the classes as given in the table. 
This table does not also include the Indian personnel attached to the British Infantry ana 
Artillery units. 





Percentage in Infantry. 

in Cavalry. 



1 Punjabi Musalman 





2 Gurkhas 




3 Sikh* 





4 Dogras 

North Punjab and 




5 Jats 

Rajputarm, U. P. 




6 Pathans 

N. W. F. Province. 




7 Mar at has 




8 Gharvalis 




9 U. P. Rajputs 

U. P. 



10 Kajputana Rajputs 




11 Kumaonis 





12 Gujars 

N. E. Rajputana 



. . . 

13 Punjabi Hindus 




14 Ahirs 




15 Muaalmana, Rajputs, 

Neighbourhood of 




16 Kaimkhanis 




17 Kachirs 




18 Chins 




.. . 

19 Karens 




20 Dekhani Musalmans 



21 Hindustani Musalmans 

U. P. 



Reducing these figures in terms of communities we get the 
following per centage as it stood in 1930 : 


Percentage in Infantry. 

Percentage in 



1 Hindus and Sikhs 
2 Gurkha* 
3 Muhammadana 
4 Burmans 



30 ; 08 

chap, v] WEAKENING OF THE bJSFEJSfcfis ff 

These figures show the communal composition of the Indian 
Ariny. The Musalmans according to Mr. Chaudhari formed 36% 
of the Indian Infantry and 30% of the Indian Cavalry. 

These figures relate to the year 1930. We must now find out 
what changes have taken place since then in this proportion. 

Now it is one of the most intriguing things in the Military 
history of India that no information is available on this point after 
1930. It is impossible to know what is the proportion of the 
Muslims in the Indian Army at present. There is no Government 
publication from which such information can be gathered. In the 
past there was no dearth of publications giving this information. 
And it is very surprising that they should have now disappeared, 
or if they do appear, that they should cease to contain this informa- 
tion. Not only is there no Government Publication containing 
information on this point, but Government has refused to give any 
information on the point when asked by the members of the Central 
Legislative Assembly. The following questions and answers taken 
from the proceedings of the Central Legislative Assembly show how 
Government has been strenously combating every attempt to obtain 
information on the point : 

There was an interpellation on I5th Sept. 1938 when the 
following questions were asked and replies given : ^^ssssssss^^ 

Arrangements for tlie Defence of India* 

Q. 1360 : Mr. Badri Dutt Paiide (on beJJSH^f I 
dra Nath Chattopadhya. 

(a) xxx 

(5) x x x 

(c) xxx 

(d} How many Indians have been recruited during 
1937 and 1938 as soldiers and officers during 1937-38 for the 
Infantry and Cavalry respectively ? Amongst the soldiers and 
officers recruited, how many are Punjabi Sikhs, Pathans, 
Garhwalis, Mahrattas, Madrasis, Biharis, Bengalis and Hindus- 
tanis of the United Provinces and Gurkhas ? 

~~ * Legislative Assembly Debates, 1938 Vol. VI, page 2462 

HiNDtt CASE AGAHSfS*T fcAtflSTAN tpatt tt 

(e) If none but the Punjabi Sikhs, Pathans and 
Garhwalis have been recruited, is it in contemplation of the 
Honourable Member to recruit from all the Provinces for the 
defence of India and give them proper military training? 

(/*) Will the Defence Secretary be pleased to state if 
Provincial Governments will be asked to raise Provincial 
Regiments, trained and fully mechanised, for the defence of 
India ? If not, what is his plan of raising an efficient army 
for the defence of India ? 

Mr. C, M. G. Ogilvie : 

(a) The Honourable Member will appreciate that 
it is not in the public interest to disclose the details of such 

(5) 5 cadets and 33 Indian apprentices were recruited 
for the Indian Air Force during 1937-38. 

(c) During 1937-38, 5 Indians have already been 
recruited to commissioned ranks in the Royal Indian Navy, 
4 will be taken by competitive examination in October, 1938, 
and 3 more by special examination of "Dufferin" cadets 
only. During the same period, 314 Indians were recruited 
non-commissioned categories in the Royal Indian 

the year ending the 3ist March 1938, 54 
.niissioned as Indian Commissioned officers. 

' ** "% fl ^2 

Tlaey,are.novv^p: ( liached to British units for training, and it is 
not* yet^po^ii^i^to say what proportion will be posted to 
infantry aUc^fea^ralry respectively. 

same period, 961 Indian soldiers were recruited 
, and 7970, for infantry. Their details by classes 
are not available at Army Headquarters and to call for them 
from the recruiting officers all over India would not justify 
the expenditure of time and labour involved. 

GO No. 

(jO The reply to the first portion is in the negative. 
The reply to the second portion is that India already 


possesses an efficient army and so far as finances permit, 
every effort is made to keep it up-to date in all respects. 

Mr. S, Satyamurti : \Vith reference to the answers to 
clauses (c) and (e) of the question taken together, may 
I know whether the attention of Government has been drawn 
to statements made by many public men that the bulk of the 
army is from the Punjab and from one community ? Have 
Government considered those facts and will Government also 
consider the desirability of making the army truly national by 
extending recruitment to all provinces and communities, so as 
to avoid the danger present in all countries of a military 
dictatorship seizing political power ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : I am not sure how that arises from 
this question, but I am prepared to say that provincial bounda- 
ries do not enter into government's calculations at all. The best 
soldiers are chosen to provide the best army for India and not 
for any province, and in this matter national considerations 
must come above provincial considerations. \Vhere the bulk 
of best military material is found, there we will go to get it, 
and not elsewhere. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : May I know whether the bulk of the 
army is from the Punjab and whether the Government have 
forgotten the experience of the brave exploits of men from 
my province not very long ago in the Indian Army, and may 
I know if Madrasis are practically kept out and many other 
provinces are kept out of the army altogether ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : Madras is not practically kept out 
of the army. Government gladly acknowledge the gallant 
services of the Madrasis in the army and they are now recruited 
to those Units where experience has proved them to be best. 
There are some 4,500 serving chiefly in the Sappers and Miners 
and Artillery. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : Out of a total of 120,000 ? 
Mr, C. M. G. Ogilvie : About th*t 


Mr. S. Satyamurti : May I take it, that, that is a proper 
proportion, considering the population of Madras, the revenue 
that Madras pays to the Central exchequer, and the necessity of 
having~a national army recruited from all the provinces ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : The only necessity we recognise is to 
obtain the best possible army. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : May I know by what tests Government 
have come to the conclusion that provinces other than the 
Punjab cannot supply the best elements in the Indian Army ? 

Mr. Ogilvie : By experience. 

Dr. Sir Ziauddin Ahmad : May I ask if it is not a fact 
that all branches of Accounts Department are monopolised by 
the Madrasis and will Government immediately reduce the 
number in proportion to their numerical strength in India ? 

Mr. Ogilvie : I do not see how that arises from this 
question either, but the Government are again not prepared 
to sacrifice efficiency for any provincial cause. 

Indian Regiment consisting of Indians belonging to Different 

Q. 1078 : Mr. M. Anantrasayanam Ayyangar (on behalf 
of Mr. Manu Subedar) : 

(a) Will the Defence Secretary state whether any 
experiment has ever been made under British rule of having 
an Indian regiment consisting of Indians recruited from 
different provinces and belonging to the different castes 
and sections, such as Sikhs, Mahrattas, Rajputs, Brahmins 
and Muslims ? 

(&) If the reply to part (#) be in the negative, can 
a statement of Government's policy in this regard be made 
giving reasons why it has not been considered proper to 
take such action ? 

, Is His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief prepar- 
ed to tafce up this matter with His Majesty's Government ? 

ve Asaetiibly Debates, 1938 V&, VI* page 24? 


(d) Are Government aware that in the University 
Corps and in the Bombay Scout Movement, and in the 
Police Forces of the country, there is no separation by caste 
or creed ? 
Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : 

(o) No. 

(6) Government regard it as a fundamental principle 
of organization that Military Sub- Units, such as companies 
and squadrons, must be homogeneous. 

(c) No, for the reason just mentioned. 

(d) Yes. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : May I know the meaning which 
Government attach to the word " homogeneous " ? Does it 
mean from the same province or the same community ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : It means that they must belong to 
the same class of persons. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : May I ask for some elucidation of this 
point ? Do they make distinction between one class and 
another ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : Certainly. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : On what basis ? Is it religious class 
or racial class or provincial class ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : Neither. It is largely racial class. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : Which races are preferred and which 
are not preferred ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : I refer the Honourable Member to 
the Army List. 

Recruitment to the Indian Army* 

Q. 1162: Mr. Brojendra Narayan Chaudhaiy : Will the 
Defence Secretary please state : 

(a) Whether the attention of Government has been 
drawn to the address of the Punjab's Premier, the 
Hon'ble, Sir Sikander Hyat Khan to his brother soldiers, 
in these words. : " No patriotic Punjabi would wish 

* legislative Assembly Debates 19^8, Vol. VI, page 274, 


to impair Punjab's position of supremacy in the Army ", 
as reported by the Associated Press of India in the Hindustan 
Times of the 5th September 1938 ; and 

(5) Whether it is the policy of Government to 
maintain the supremacy of Punjabis in the army by 
continuing to recruit the major portion from the Punjab ; or to 
attempt recruitment of the Army from all the provinces 
without racial or provincial considerations ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : 

(6) I refer the Honourable Member to replies I gave to 
the supplementary questions arising from starred question 
No. 1060 asked by Mr. Amarendra Nath Chattopadhyaya 
on 1 5th Septemer 1938. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : With reference to the answer to part (a) of 
the question, my Honourable friend referred to previous answers. 
As far as I remember, they were not given after this statement 
was brought before this House. May I know if the Government 
of India have examined this statement of the Punjab Premier, 
" No patriotic Punjabi would wish to impair Punjab's position of 
supremacy in the Army " ? May I know whether Government 
have considered the dangerous implications of this statement and 
will they take steps to prevent a responsible Minister going about 
and claiming provincial or communal supremacy in the Indian 
Army, which ought to remain Indian first and Indian last ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : I can only answer in exactly 
the same words as I answered to a precisely similar question of the 
Hon'ble Member on the i5th September last The policy of 
Government with regard to the recruitment has been repeatedly 
stated and is perfectly clear. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : That policy is to get the best material 
and I am specifically asking my Honourable friend- 1 hope he 
realises the implications of that statement of the Punjab Premier. 
I want to tmow whether the Government have examined the 
dangerous implications of any provincial Premier 

V] WEAkfiNING 6F Trifc DEFfeNCfiS 

provincial supremacy in the Indian Army and whether they 
propose to take any steps to correct this dangerous misappre- 
hension ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : Government consider that there are 
no dangerous implications whatever but rather the reverse. 

Mr. S. Satyamurti : Do Government accept the supremacy 
of any province or any community as desirable consideration, even 
if it is a fact, to be uttered by responsible public men and do not 
the Government consider that this will give rise to communal 
and provincial quarrels and jealousies inside the army and 
possibly a military dictatatorship in this country ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilivie : Government consider that none of 
these forebodings have any justification at all. 

Mr. M. S. Aney : Do the Government subscribe to the policy 
implied in the statement of Sir Sikander Hyat Khan ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : Government's policy has been repeatedly 
stated and made clear. 

Mr. M. S. Aney : Is it the policy that the Punjab should have 
its supremacy in the Army ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Oiglivie : The policy is that the best material 
should be recruited for the Army. 

Mr. M. S. Aney : I again repeat the question. Is it the 
policy of Government that Punjab should have supremacy in the 
Army ? 

Mr. M. G. Ogilvie : I have repeatedly answered that question. 
The policy is that the Army should get the best material from 
all provinces and Government are quite satisfied that it has the 
best material at present. 

Mr. M. S. Aney : Is it not therefore necessary that Govern- 
ment should make a statement modifying the policy suggested 
by Sir Sikander Hyat Khan ? 

Mr, C. M. G. Ogilvie : Government have no intention whatever 
of changing their policy in any particular. 


Another interpellation took place on 23rd November 1938 when 
the question stated below was asked : 

Recruitment to the Indian Army from the Central Provinces 
& Berar* 

Q. 1402 : Mr. Govind V. Deshmukh : Will the Defence 
Secretary please state : 

(#) The Centres in the Central Provinces and Berar 
for recruiting men for the Indian Army ; 

(6) The classes from which such men are recruited ; 

(c) The proportion of the men from the C. P. & Berar 
in the Army to the total strength of the Army, as well as to 
the population of these provinces ; and 

(cZ) The present policy of recruitment, and if it is going 
to be revised ; if not, why not ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : 

(#) There'are no recruiting centres in the C. P. or Berar. 
Men residing in the C. P. are in the area of the Recruiting 
Officer, Delhi, and those of Berar in the area of the Recruiting 
officer, Poona. 

(6) Mahrattas of Berar are recruited as a separate class. 
Other Hindus and Mussalmans who are recruited from the 
C. P. and Berar are classified as " Hindus " or " Musalmans ", 
and are not entered under any class denominaiion. 

(c) The proportion to the total strength of the Army is 
.03 per cent and the proportion to the total male population 
of these provinces is .0004 per cent. 

(<$) There is at present no intention of revising the 
present policy, the reasons for which were stated in my reply to 
a supplementary question arising out of Mr. Satyamurti's starred 
question No. 1060, on the I5th September 1938, and in answer 
to part (a) of started question No. 1086 asked by Mian Ghulam 
Kadir Muhammad Shahbau on the same date, and in the reply 
of His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief to the debates in 
Council of State on the Honourable Mr. Sushil Kumar 

*JLegislative Assembly Debates, 1938 Vol. VII, page 3313 

chap, v] WEAKENING OF* tfrfE dEF'EisfcES $5 

Roy Chaudhary's Resolution regarding military training for 
Indians on the 2ist February 1938 and on the Hooourable 
Mr. P. N. Sapru's Resolution on the recruitment of all 
classes to the Indian Army in April, 1935. 

This was followed by an intsrpellation on 6th Feb, 1939 When 
the below mentioned question was asked : 

Recruitment to the Indian Army* 

Q. 129 : Mr. S. Satyamurti : Will the Defence Secretary 
be pleased to state : 

(a) Whether Government have since the last answer 
on this question reconsidered the question of recruiting to the 
India Army from all piovinces and from all castes and 
communities ; 

Whether they have come to any conclusion ; 

(c) Whether Government will categorically state the 
reasons as to why other provinces and communities are not 
allowed to serve in the army ; and 

(jcT) What are the tests by which they have come to the 
conclusion that other provinces and other communities than 
those from whom recruitment is made to the Indian Army 
to day cannot come up to the standard of efficiency required 
of the Indian Army ? 

Mr. C. M. G. Ogilvie : 
(a.) No. 
(6) Does not arise. 

(c) and (d) The reasons have been categorically 
stated in my replies to starred questions Nos. 1060 and 1086 
of 1 5th September 1938, No. 1162 of 2Oth September 1938 
and No. 1402 of 23rd November 1938 and also in the 
replies of His Excellency the Commander inChief in the 
Council of State to the debates on the Honourable Mr. P. Isf. 
Sapru's Resolution regarding recruitment of all classes to the 

^Legislative Assembly Debates, 1939 Vol. I, page 253. 

Indian Army and the Honourable Mr. Sushil Kumar Roy 
Chaudhary's Resolution regarding Military training for 
Indians, on the I3th March, 1935, and 2ist February 1938 

This obstinacy on the part of the Government of India in the 
matter of giving information on this most vital point has given rise 
to all sorts of speculation as to the present proportion of Muslims in 
the Indian Army. Some say that the proportion is between 60 and 
70 p. c. Others say that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood 
of 50 p. c. Whether the first figure is true or the second is true 
the proportion must be high enough to cause alarm to the 
Hindus. There can be no other explanation of this secrecy so 
tenaciously maintained by Government. In the absence of exact 
information one could well adopt the latter figure as disclosing the 
true situation especially, on inquiry, it happens to be confirmed by 
those who are in a position to form some idea on the matter. If 
these facts are true, they are a flagrant violation of well established 
principles of British Army policy in India. 

After the Mutiny, the British Government ordered two 
investigations into the organization of the Indian Army. First 
invesitgation was carried out by the Peel Commission which was 
appointed in 1859. The second investigation was undertaken 
by a body, called the Special Army Committee, which was 
appointed in 1879 an( ^ to which reference has already been made. 

The principal question considered by the Peel Commission 
was to find out the weaknesses in the Bengal Army, which led to 
the Mutiny of 1857. The Peel Commission was told by witness 
after witness that the principal weakness in the Bengal Army 
which mutinied was that 

" In the ranks of the regular Army men stood mixed up as chance 
might befall. There was no separating by class and clan into 
companies ......... In the lines, Hindu and Mahomedan, Sikh and 

Poorbeah were mixed up, so that each and all lost to some extent 
their racial prejudice and became inspired with one common 

MUM and I^veto -" The Armies o 


It was therefore proposed by Sir Jon Lawrence that in 
organizing the India Army care shouid be taken " to preserve that 
distinct! veness which is so valuable, and while it lasts, makes the 
Mahomedan of one country despise, fear or dislike the Mahomedan 
of another ; Corps should in future be provincial, and adhere to 
the geographical limits within which differences and rivalries are 
strongly marked. Let all races, Hindu or Mahomedan of one 
province be enlisted in one regiment and no others, and having 
created distinctive regiments, let us keep them so, against the hour 

of need By the system thus indicated two great evils are 

avoided : firstly, that community of feeling throughout the native 
army and that mischievous political activity and intrigue which 
results from association with other races and travel in other 
Indian provinces."* 

This proposal was supported by many military men before 
the Peel Commission and was recommended by it as a principle of 
Indian Army Policy. This principle is known as the principle of 
Class Composition. 

The Special Army Committee of 1879 was concerned with 
quite a different problem. What the problem was, becomes 
manifest from the questionnaire issued by the Committee. The 
questionnaire included the following question : 

"If the efficient and available reserve of the Indian Army Is 
considered necessary for the safety of the Empire, should it not be 
recruited and maintained from those parts of the country which 
give us best soldiers, rather than among the weakest and least 
warlike races of India, due regard of course being had to the 
necessity of not giving too great strength or prominence to any 
particular race or religious group and with due regard to the safety 
of the Empire " ? 

The principal part of the question is obviously the necessity 
or otherwise of " not giving too great strength or prominence to any 
particular race or religious group ". On this question official opinion 
expressed before the Committee was unanimous. 

* As quoted by 


Lt General H, J. Warres, Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay 
Army stated : 

" I consider It Is not possible to recruit the reserve of the Indian 
Army altogether from those parts of India which are said to produce 
best soldiers, without giving undue strength and prominence to the 
races and religions of these countries. " 

The Commander-in-Chief Sir Frederic P. Haines said : 

" Distinct in race, language and interests from the more numerous 
Army of Bengal, it is, in my opinion eminently politic and wise to 
maintain these armies (the Madras and Bombay Armies) as a 
counterpoise to it, and I would in no way diminish their strength 
In order that a reserve composed of what is called 'the mcst efficient 
fighting men whom it is possible to procure' may be established. 
If, by this it is meant to replace Sepoys of Madras and Bombay 
by a reserve of men passed through the ranks of the Bengal Army 
and composed of the same classes of which it is formed, I would 
say that any thing more unwise or more impolitic could hardly be 
conceived. " 

The Lt. Governor of the Punjab also shared this view. He too 
declared that he was "opposed to having one recruiting field for the 
whole armies" in India. "It will be necessary " he added, "for 
political reasons, to prevent preponderance of one nationality. " 

The Special Committee accepted this view and recommended 
that the composition of the Indian Army should be so regulated that 
there should be no predominance of any one community or nationa- 
lity in the Army. 

These two principles have been the governing principles of 
Indian Army policy. Having regard to the principle laid down by 
the Special Army Committee of 1879 the changes that have taken 
place in the communal composition of the Indian Army amount to 
a complete revolution. How this revolution was allowed to take 
place is beyond comprehension. It is a revolution which has taken 
place in the teeth of a well established principle. The principle was 
really suggested by the fear of the growing predominance of the men 
of the North- West in the Indian Army and was invoked with the 
special object of curbing that tendency. The principle was not 
only enunciated as a rule of guidance but was taken to be 
rigorously applied. Lord Roberts, who was opposed to this principle 


because it set a limit upon the recruitment of his pet men of the 
North- West, had to bow to this principle during his regime as the 
Commander-in-Chief of India. So well was the principle respected 
that when in 1903 Lord Kitchner entered upon the project of 
converting fifteen regiments of Madrasis into Punjabi regiments he 
immediately set up a counterpoise to the Sikhs and the Punjabi 
Musalmans by raising the proportion oi Gurkhas and Pathans. As 
Sir George Arthur, his biographer says : 

" The Government, mindful of the lesson taught by the Mutiny, 
was alive to the danger of allowing any one element in the Indian 
Army to preponderate unduly. An increase in the Punjabee infantry 
had as its necessary sequel a further recruitment of the valuable 
Gurkha material and the enlistment of more trans-border Pathans 
in the Frontier Militia." 

That a principle, so unanimously upheld and so rigorously applied 
upto the period of the great war, should have been thrown to the wind 
after the Great War, without ceremony and without compunction and 
in a clandestine manner, is really beyond comprehension. AVhat is the 
reason which has led the British to allow so great a preponderance of 
the Muslims in the Indian Army ? Two explanations are possible. 
One is that the Musalmans really proved, in the Great War, that 
they were better soldiers than the Hindus. The second explanation 
is that the British have broken the rule and have given the 
Musalmans such a dominating position in the Army because they 
* wanted to counter-act the forces of the Hindu agitation for wresting 
political power from the hands of the British. 

Whatever be the explanation, two glaring facts stand out from 
the above survey. One is that the Indian Army today is pre- 
dominantly Muslim in its composition. The other is that the 
Musalmans who predominate are the Musalmans from the Punjab 
and N. W. F. Such a composition of the Indian Army means that 
the Musalmans of the Punjab and the N. W. F. are made the sole 
defenders of India from foreign invasion. So patent has this fact 
become that the Musalmans of the Punjab and the N. W. F. are 
quite conscious of this proud position which has been assigned to 
them by the British for reasons best known to them. For, one 


often hears them say that they are the gate-keepers of India. The 
Hindus must consider the problem of the defence of India in the 
light of this cmcial fact. 

How far can the Hindus depend upon these gate-keepers to 
hold the gate and protect the liberty and freedom of India ? The 
answer to this question must depend upon as to who comes to force 
the gate. It is obvious that there are only two foreign foes who 
are likely to force this gate at the North- West of India, Russia or 
Afghanistan, the borders of both of which touch the border of 
India. Which of them will invade India and when no one can 
definitely say. If the invasion came from Russia it may be hoped 
that these gate-keepers of India will be staunch and loyal enough 
to hold the gate and stop the invader. But suppose, the Afghans 
singly or in combination with other Muslim States march on India, 
will these gate-keepers stop the invader or will they open the gates 
and let him in ? This is a question which no Hindu can afford to 
ignore. This is a question to which every Hindu must get a 
satisfactory answer, because it is the most crucial question. 

Of course it is possible to say that Afghanistan will never think 
of invading India. But a theory is best tested by examining its 
capacity to meet the worst case. The loyalty and dependability of 
this Army of the Punjabi and N. W. F. Muslims can only be tested 
by considering how it will behave in the event of an invasion by the 
Afghans. Will they respond to the call of the land of their birth or 
will they be swayed by the call of their religion, are questions which 
inust be faced if ultimate security is to be obtained. Nor is it safe to 
seek to escape from these annoying and discomforting questions by 
believing that we need not worry about foreign invasion so long 
India is under the protection of the British. Such a complacent 
attitude is unforgiveable to say the least. In the first place the 
present war has shown that a situation may arise when Great Britain 
may not be able to protect India, although that is the time when India 
needs her protection most. Secondly, the efficiency of an institution 
must be tested under natural conditions and not under artificial 
conditions. The behaviour of the Indian Soldier under British control 
is artificial. His behaviour when he is under Indian control is its 
natural behaviour. British control does not allow much play to the 

chap, v] WEAKfifctote OF 

That is why the men in the Army behave so well. But that is an 
artificial and not a natural condition. That the Indian Army behaves 
well under British control is no guarantee of its good behaviour under 
Indian control. A Hindu must be satisfied that it will behave 
as well when British control is withdrawn. 

The question how this army of the Punjabi and N. W. F. 
Muslims will behave if Afghanistan invades is a very pertinent and 
crucial question and must be faced, however unpleasant it may be 
to do so. 

Some may say why assume that the large proportion of 
Muslims in the army is a settled fact and that it cannot be unsettled. 
Those who can unsettle it are welcome to make what efforts they 
can. But so far as one can see, it is not going to be unsettled. On 
the contrary I should not be surprised if it was entered in the 
constitution, when revised, as a safeguard for the Muslim Minority. 
The Musalmans are sure to make this demand and as against 
the Hindus the Muslims somehow always succeed. We must, 
therefore, proceed on the assumption that the composition of 
the Indian Army will remain what it is at present. The basis 
remaining the same, the question to be pursued remains what it was : 
Can the Hindus depend upon such an army to defend the country 
against the invasion of Afghanistan ? Only the so-called Indian 
Nationalists will say yes to it. The boldest among the realists must 
stop to think before he can give an answer to the question. The 
realist must take note of the fact that the Musalmans look upon the 
Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserve more to be exterminated than pro- 
tected. The realist must take note of the feet that while the Musalman 
accepts the European as his superior, he looks upon the Hindu as 
his inferior. It is doubtful how far a regiment of Musalmans 
will accept the authority of their Hindu officers if they were placed 
under them. The realist must take note that of all the Musalmans 
the Musalman of the North-West is the most disaffected Musalman, 
in his relation with the Hindus. The realist must take note that the 
Punjabi Musalman is fully susceptible to the propaganda in favour 
of Pan-Islamism. Taking note of all these considerations, there can 
be very little doubt that he would be a bold Hindu, who would say 
that in any invasion by Muslim countries, the Muslims in the Indian 

cAs AGAifcst PAKISTAN [part tt 

Army would be loyal and that there is no danger of their going over to 
the invader. Even Theodore Morison*, writing in 1899, was of the 
opinion that 

"The views held by the Mahomedans (certainly the most 
aggressive and truculent of the peoples of India ) are alone sufficient 
to prevent the establishment of an independent Indian Government. 
Were the Afghan to descend from the north upon an autonomous 
India, the Muhamedans, instead of uniting with the Sikhs and 
Hindus to repel him, would be drawn by all the ties of kinship and 
religion to join his flag". 

And when it is recalled that in 1919 the Indian Musalmans 
who were carrying on the Khilafat movement actually went to the 
length of inviting the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India, the 
view expressed by Sir Theodore Morison acquires added strength 
and ceases to be a mere matter of speculation. 

How this Army composed of the Muslims of the Punjab and 
N. W. F. will behave in the case of an invasion by Afghanistan is 
not the only question which the Hindus are called upon to consider. 
There is another and equally important question on which the 
Hindus must ponder. That question is : Will the Indian 
Government be free to use this army, whatever its loyalities, against 
the invading Afghans ? In this connection attention must be 
drawn to the stand taken by the Muslim League. It is to the 
effect that the Indian Army shall not be used against Muslim powers. 
There is of course nothing new in this. This principle was enunciated 
by the Khilafat Committee long before the League. Apart from the 
question, with whom this principle first originated the question 
remains how far the League will insist upon its being enforced. That 
the League has not succeeded in this behalf against the British Govern- 
ment does not mean that it will not succeed against an Indian Govern- 
ment. The chances are that it will, because, however unpatriotic the 
principle may be from the standpoint of the Hindus, it is most agreeable 
to the Muslim sentiment and the League may find a sanction for it 
in the general support of the Muslim community in India. If the 
Muslim League succeeds in enforcing this limitation upon India's right 
to use her fighting forces, what is going to be the position of the 
Hindus? This is another question which the Hindus have to 

^Imperial role in India, page 5. 

Chap. V] WEAKJEtflNG OF tHE t>EFfcfcTCE$ 

If the shape of things to come is not going to be different from 
what it is, the Hindus will find themselves between the devil and the 
deep sea so far as the defence of India is considered, if India remains 
as one whole. Having an army, they will not be free to use it because 
the League objects. Using it, it will not be possible to depend upon it 
because its loyalty is doubtful. This is a position which is as pathetic 
as it is precarious. If the army continues to be dominated by the 
Muslims of the Punjab and N. W. F., the Hindus will have to pay 
them but will not be able to use them and even if they were free 
to use them against a Muslim invader they will find it hazardous to 
depend upon them. If the League view prevails and India does 
not remain free to use her army against Muslim countries, then, even 
if the Muslims lose their predominance in the army, India on account 
of these military limitations, will have to remain on terms of 
sub-ordinate co-operation with Muslim countries on her border, as do, 
the Indian States under British paramountcy. 

The Hindus have a difficult choice to make : to have a safe 
army on a safe border. In this difficulty, what is the wisest course 
for the Hindus to pursue ? Is it in their interest to insist that the 
Muslim India should remain part of India so that they may have a safe 
border, or is it in their interest to welcome its separation from India 
so that they may have a safe army ? The Musalmans of this area are 
hostile to the Hindus. As to this there can be no doubt. Which is 
then better for the Hindus : Should these Musalmans be without and 
against or should they be within and against ? If the question 
is asked to any prudent man there will be only one answer, namely, 
that if the Musalmans are to be against the Hindus, it is better that 
they should be without and against, rather than within and against. 
Indeed it is a consumation devoutly to be wished that the Muslims 
should be without. That is the only way of getting rid of the 
Muslim preponderance in the Indian Army. 

How can it be brought about ? Here again, there is only one 
way to bring it about and that is to support the scheme of Pakistan. 
Once Pakistan is created, Hindustan, having ample resources in men 
and money, can have an army which it can call its own and there will 
be no body to dictate as to how it should be used and against 
whom it should be used. The defence of Hindustan far from being 
weakened by the creation of Pakistan, will be infinitely improved by it* 

HIN0D CASE AOAfl^ST f>Ai&KtAfcf fpart 11 

The Hindus do not seem to realize at what disadvantage they 
are placed from the point of view of their defence by their exclusion 
from the army. Much less do they know that strange as it may 
appear they are in fact purchasing this disadvantage at a very heavy 

The Pakistan area which is the main recruiting ground of the 
present Indian Army contributes very little to the central exchequer 
as will be seen from the following figures : 


Punjab ... ... 1,18,01,385 

North West Frontier ... ... 9,28,294 

Sind ... ... 5,86,46,915 

Baluchistan ... ... Nil 

Total ... 7,13,76,594 

As against this the provinces of Hindustan contribute as 
follows : 


Madras ... ... 9,53,26,745 

Bombay ... ... 22,53,44,247 

Befigal* ... ... 12,00,00,000 

U. P. ... ... 4,o5,53, oo 

Bihar ... ... 1,54,37,742 

C. P. & Berar ... ... 31,42,682 

Assam ... ... 1,87,55,967 

Orissa ... ... 5,67,346 

Total ... 

The Pakistan Provinces, it will be seen, contribute very little. 
The main contribution comes from the Provinces of Hindustan. In 
fact it is the money contributed by the Provinces of Hindustan 
which enables the Government of India to carry out its activities in 
the Pakistan Provinces. The Pakistan Provinces are a drain of 
the Provinces of Hindustan. Not only do they contribute very 
little to the Central Government but they receive a great deal from 
the Central government. The revenue of the Central Government 

* *Gt*ly 4 revenue is shown because nearly -fc population is Hindu. 


amounts to Rs. 121 crores. Of this about Rs. 52 crores are annually 
spent on the army. In what area is this amount spent ? Who 
pays the bulk of this amount of Rs. 52 crores? The bulk of this 
amount of Rs. 52 crores which is spent on the army is spent over 
the Muslim army drawn from the Pakistan area. Now the bulk of 
this amount of Rs. 52 crores is contributed by the Hindu provinces 
and is spent on an army from which the Hindus, who pay for 
it, are excluded ! ! How many Hindus are aware of this tragedy ? 
How many know at whose cost this tragedy is being enacted ? Today 
the Hindus are not responsible for it because they cannot prevent it. 
Question is whether they will allow this tragedy to continue ? If 
they mean to stop it, then, the surest way of putting an end to it 
is to allow the scheme of Pakistan to take effect. To oppose it, is to 
buy a sure weapon of their own destruction. A safe army is better 
than a safe border. 


Does Pakistan solve the Communal Question is a natural 
question which every Hindu is sure to ask. A correct answer to 
this question calls for a close analysis of what is involved in it. One 
must have a clear idea as to what is exactly meant, when Hindus and 
Muslims speak of the Communal Question. Without it, it will 
not be possible to say whether Pakistan does or does not solve the 
Communal Question. 

It is not generally known that the Communal Question like the 
" forward policy " for the Frontier has a " greater " and a " lesser 
intent/' and that in its lesser intent it means one thing and in its 
greater intent it means quite a different thing. 

To begin with the Communal Question in its lesser intent. In 
its lesser intent the Communal Question relates to the representation 
of Hindus and Muslims in the Legislatures. Used in this sense, the 
question involves the settlement of two distinct problems : 

(1) The number of seats to be allotted to Hindus and 
Muslims in the different legislatures, 

(2) The nature of the electorates through which these 
seats are to be filled in. 

The Muslims at the Round Table Conference claimed : 

(i) That their representatives should be elected by 
separate electorates in all the Provincial as well as in the 
Centra] Legislatures, 


(2) That they should be allowed to retain the weightage 
in representation given to Muslim minorities in those 
provinces in which they were a minority in the population, 
and that in addition they should be given in those provinces 
where they were a majority of the population, such as 
the Punjab, Sind, North- West Frontier Provinces and 
Bengal, a guaranteed statutory majority of seats. 

The Hindus from the beginning objected to both these 
Muslim demands. They insisted on joint electorates for Hindus 
and Muslims in all elections to all the legislatures, Central and 
Provincial, and population ratio of representation for both minorities, 
Hindu and Muslim, wherever they may be, and raised the strongest 
objections to a majority of seats to any community being guaranteed 
by statute. 

The Communal Award of His Majesty's Government settled 
this dispute by the simple, rough and ready method of giving the 
Muslims all that they wanted, without caring for the Hindu opposition. 
The Award allowed the Muslims to retain their weightages and their 
separate electorates, and in addition gave them the statutory majority 
of seats in those provinces where they were a majority in the 

What is it in the Award which can be said to constitute a pro- 
blem ? Is there any force in the objections of the Hindus to the 
Communal Award of His Majesty's Government ? This question 
must be considered carefully to find out whether there is substance 
in the objections of the Hindus to the Award. 

First, as to their objection to the weightage to Muslim minorities 
in the matter of representation. "Whatever may be the correct 
measure of allotting representation to minorities, the Hindus cannot very 
well object to the weightage given to Muslim minorities, because similar 
weightage has been given to Hindus in those provinces in which they 
are a minority and where there is sufficient margin for weightage 
to be allowed. The treatment of the Hindu minorities in Sind and 
the North- West Frontier Province is a case in point. 

Second, as to their objection to a statutory majority. That 
again does not appear to be well founded. A system of guaranteed 
representation may be wrong and vicious and quite unj ustifiaWe on 


theoretical and philosophical grounds. But consideied in the light 
of circumstances such as those obtaining in India, the system of statutory 
majority appears to be inevitable. Once it is granted that a minority 
must be secured by law a certain minimum number of seats, that very 
provision gives rise, as a mere counterpart, to a system of statutory 
majority to the majority community. For, fixing the seats of the 
minority involves the fixation of the seats of the majority. There 
is therefore no escape from the system of statutory majority, once 
it is conceded that a minority is entitled to a minimum number 
of seats guaranteed by law. There is therefore no great force in 
the objections of the Hindus to a statutory majority of Muslims 
in the Punjab, N.-W. F. Province, Sind and Bengal. For even 
in Provinces where the Hindus are in majority and the 
Mahomcdans are in minority, the Hindus have also got a statutory 
majority over the Muslims. There is thus a parity of position and 
to that extent there can be said to be no ground for complaint. 

This does not mean that because the objections set forth by 
the Hindus have no substance, there are no real grounds for opposing 
the Communal Award. For there does exist a substantial ground 
of objection to the Communal Award, although, they do not appear 
to have been made the basis of attack by the Hindus. 

This objection may be formulated in this wise in order to bring 
out its point. The Muslim minorities in the Hindu provinces 
insisted on separate electorates. The Communal Award gives them 
the right to determine that issue. This is really what it comes to 
when one remembers the usual position taken viz., that the Muslim 
minorities could not be deprived of their separate electorates without 
their consent, and the majority community of theHindus has been made 
to abide by their determination. The Hindu minorities in Muslim 
provinces insisted that there should be joint electorates. Instead 
of conceding their claim, the Communal Award forced upon them 
the system of separate electorates to which they objected. If in. the 
Hindu provinces the Muslim minorities are allowed the right of 
self-determination in the matter of electorates, the question arises : Why 
are not the Hindu minorities in the Muslim provinces given the right 
of self-determination in the matter of their electorates ? What is the 
answer to this question ? And, if there is no answer, then, there m 


undoubtedly a deep-seated inequity in the Communal Award of 
His Majesty's Government, which calls for redress. 

It is no answer that the position of the Muslim minorities in 
the Hindu provinces, is not different from the position of the 
Hindu minorities in the Muslim provinces, inasmuch as in the 
former provinces also the Hindus will have a statutory majority based on 
separate electorates. A little scrutiny will show that there is no 
parity of position in these two cases. The separate electorates for 
the Hindu majorities in the Hindu provinces are not a matter of 
their choice. It is a consequence resulting from the determination 
of the Muslim minorities who claimed to have separate electorates 
for themselves. A minority in one set of circumstances may think 
that separate electorates would be a better method of self-protection 
and may have no fear of creating against itself and by its own 
action a statutory majority based on separate electorates for the opposing 
community. Another minority or for the matter of that the same 
minority in a different set of circumstances would not like to create 
by its own action and against itself a statutory majority based upon 
separate electorates and may, therefore, prefer joint electorates to 
separate electorates as a better method of self-protection. Obviously 
the guiding principle, which would influence a minority, would be : 
Is the majority likely to use its majority in a communal manner 
and purely for communal purposes ? If it felt certain that the 
majority community is likely to use its communal majority for 
communal ends, it may well choose joint electorates, because it 
would be the only method by which it would hope to take away the 
communal cement of the statutory majority by influencing the 
elections of the representatives of the majority community in the 
legislatures. On the other hand, a majority community may not 
have the necessary communal cement, which alone would enable it 
to use its communal majority for communal ends, in which case 
a minority, having no fear from the resulting statutory majority and 
separate electorates for the majority community, may well choose 
separate electorates for itself. To put it concretely, the Muslim 
minorities in choosing separate electorates are not afraid of the 
separate electorates and the statutory majority of the Hindus, because 
they feel sutre that by reason of their deep-seated differences of caste and 
race, the Hindus will never be able to use their majorities against 


the Muslims. On the other hand, the Hindu minorities in the 
Muslim provinces have no doubt that by reason of their social 
solidarity the Moslems will use their statutory majority to set into 
operation a " resolute Muslim Government ", after the plan proposed 
by Lord Salisbury for Ireland as a substitute for Home Rule ; with 
this difference, that Salisbury's Resolute Government was to last for 
twenty years only, while the Muslim Resolute Government is to last 
as long as the Communal Award stands. The situations therefore 
are not alike. The statutory majority of the Hindus based on 
separate electorates is the result of the choice made by the Muslim 
minority. The statutory majority of the Muslims based on separate 
electorates is something which is not the result of the choice of the 
Hindu minority. In one case, the Government of the Muslim 
minority by a Hindu communal majority is the result of the consent 
of the Muslim minority. In the other case, the Government of the 
Hindu minority by the Muslim majority is not the result of the 
consent of the Hindu minority, but is imposed upon it by the might 
of the British Government. 

To sum up this discussion of the Communal Award, it may 
b3 said that " as a solution of the Communal Question in its " lesser 
intent ", there is no inequity in the Award because it gives 
weightage to the Muslim minorities in the Hindu Provinces. If 
there is any inequity in it, it must be set off against the weightage 
given to the Hindu minorities in Muslim Provinces. Similarly, it 
may be said that there is no inequity in the Award because it gives 
a statutory majority to the Muslims in Provinces in which they 
are a majority. If there is any, the statutory majority resulting to 
the Hindus in Hindu Provinces from the limitation put upon the 
Muslim number of scats must be set off against it. But the same 
cannot be said in the matter of the electorates. The Communal 
Award is inequitious inasmuch as, it accords unequal treatment to 
the Hindu and Muslim minorities in the matter of electorates. It 
grants the Muslim minorities in the Hindu Provinces the right of 
self-determination in the matter of electorates. But it does not grant 
the same right of self-determination in the matter of electorates to the 
Hindu minorities in the Muslim Provinces. In the Hindu Provinces 
the Muslim minority is allowed to choose the kind of electorates 

CASE AGAINST PAiostAN {part il 

it wants and the Hindu majority is not permitted to have any say 
in the matter. But in the Muslim Provinces it is the Muslim 
majority which is allowed to choose the kind of electorates it prefers 
and the Hindu minority is not permitted to have any say in the 
matter. Thus, the Muslims in the Muslims Provinces, having been 
given both statutory majority and separate electorate as well, the 
Communal Award must be said to impose upon the Hindu minorities 
Muslim rule, which they can neither alter nor influence. 

This is what constitutes the fundamental wrong in the Communal 
Award. That, this is a grave wrong, must be admitted. Certain 
political principles have now become axiomatic. One is, not to trust 
any one with unlimited political power. As has been well said, 

" If in any state there is a body of men who possess unlimited 
" political power, those over whom they rule can never be free. For, 
the one assured result of historical investigation is the lesson that 
uncontrolled power is invariably poisonous to those who possess it, 
They are always tempted to impose their cannon of good upon 
others, and in the end, they assume that the good of community 
depends upon the continuance of their power. Liberty always 
demands a limitation of political authority " 

The second principle is, that a King has no Divine Right to rule 
and so also a majority has no Divine Right to rule. A majority rule 
is only tolerated because it is for a limited period and subject to 
a right to have it changed. Secondly because, it is a rule of 
a political majority, i.e., a majority which has submitted itself to the 
sufferages of a minority and not a communal majority. If such is 
the limited scope of authority permissible to a political majority 
over a political minority, how can a communal minority be placed 
under perpetual subjection of a communal majority ? To 
allow a communal majority to rule a minority without requiring 
the majority to submit itself to the sufferages of the minority, 
especially when the minority demands it, is to enact a perversion of 
democratic principles and to show a callous disregard for the 
safety and security of the Hindu minorities. 



To turn to the Communal Question in its greater intent. 
What is it that the Hindus say is a problem ? In its greater intent 
the Communal Question relates to the deliberate creation of 
Muslim Provinces. At the time of the Lucknow Pact the Muslims 
only raised the Communal Question in its lesser intent. At the 
Round Table Conference the Muslims put forth, for the first time, 
the plan covered by the Communal Question in its greater intent. 
Before the Act of 1935 there were a majority of provinces in 
which the Hindus were in a majority and the Mahomedans in 
a minority. There were only three provinces in which Muslims 
were in a majority and the Hindus in a minority. They were the 
Punjab, Bengal and the North-West Frontier. Of these, the 
Muslim majority in the North- West Frontier was not effective, 
because there was no responsible government in that province, the 
Montagu-Chelmsford Scheme of Political Reforms not being 
extended to it. So, for all practical purposes there were only two 
provinces the Punjab and Bengal wherein the Muslims were 
in majority and the Hindus were in minority. The Muslims desired 
that the number of Muslim provinces should be increased. With 
this object in view they demanded that Sind should be separated 
from the Bombay Presidency, and created into a new self-governing 
province, and that the North- West Frontier Province, which was 
already a separate province, should be raised to the status of 
a self-governing province. Apart from other considerations, from 
a purely financial point of view, it was not possible to concede 
this demand. Neither Sind nor the N. W. F. were financially 
self-supporting. But in order to satisfy the Muslim demand the 
British Government went to the length of accepting the responsi- 
bility of giving an annual subvention to Sind* and N. W. F.f 
from the Central Revenues, so as to bring about a budgetory 
equilibrium in their finances and make them financially 
self-su ppor tin g. 

These four provinces with Muslims in majority and Hindus 
in minority, which are now functioning as autonomous and 

* Siod gets annual subvention of Re. 1,05,00,000. 

f N. W, F, gets *irnn*l subvention of Rs,l ,00,00,000. 


self-governing provinces were certainly not created for administrative 
convenience. They were not created for purposes of architectural 
symmetry the Hindu provinces poised against the Muslim provinces. 
The scheme of the Muslim provinces was not a mere matter of pride 
to have Hindu minorities under Muslim majorities just as Hindu 
majorities had Muslim minorities under them. \Vhat was the 
underlying motive for this scheme of Muslim Provinces ? The 
Hindus say that the motive for the Muslim insistence, both on 
a statutory majority and separate electorates, was to enable the 
Muslim in the Muslim Provinces to mobilize and make effective 
Muslim power in its exclusive form and to the fullest extent 
possible. Asked what could be the purpose of having the Muslim 
political power mobilized in this fashion, the Hindus answer that it 
was done to give in the hands of the Muslims of the Muslim 
Provinces an effective means to tyrannize their Hindu minorities 
in case the Muslim minorities in the Hindu Provinces were 
tyrannized by their Hindu majorities. Thinking that the Hindu 
majority will tyrannize the Muslim minority in the Hindu provinces, 
the scheme gave the Mahomedan majorities a handle to 
tyrannize the Hindu minorities in the five Mahomedan provinces- 
It thus became a system of protection against blast by counter-blast, 
against terror by terror and eventually against tyranny by tyranny. 
The plan is undoubtedly, a dreadful one, involving the mamtaiiance 
of justice and peace by retaliation, and providing an opportunity for 
the punishment of an innocent minority, Hindu in Mahomedan 
provinces and Mahomedan in Hindu provinces, for the sins of their 
co-religionists in other provinces. It is a scheme of communal 
peace through a system of communal hostages. 

That the Muslims were aware from the very start, that the 
system of Communal Provinces was capable of being worked in 
this manner, is clear from the speech made by Maulana 
Abul Kalam Azad as President of the Muslim League Session held 
in Calcutta in 1927. In that speech the Maulana declared : 

" That by the Lucknow Pact they had sold away their interests. 
The Delhi proposals of March last opened the door for the first time 
to the recognition of the real rights of Mussalmans in India. The 
separate electorates granted by the Pact of 1916 only ensured 
Muslim representation, but what was vital for the existence of the 


community was the recognition of its numerical strength. Delhi 
opened the way to the creation of such a state of affairs as would 
guarantee to them in the future of India a proper share. Their 
existing small majority in Bengal and the Punjab was only a census 
figure, but the Delhi proposals gave them for the first time five 
provinces of which 110 less than three (Sind, tho Frontier Province 
and Baluchistan) contained a real overwhelming Muslim majority. 
If the Muslims did not recognise this great step they were not fit to 
live. There would now be nine Hindu provinces against five 
Muslim provinces, and whatever treatment Hindus accorded in 
the nine provinces, Muslims would accord the same treatment to 
Hindus in the five provinces. Was not this a great gain ? Was not 
a new weapon gained for the assertion of Muslim rights ?" 

That those in charge of these Muslim provinces know the 
advantage of the scheme, and do not hesitate to put it to the 
use for which it was intended, is clear from the recent speeches of 
Mr. Fazl til-Huq, the Prime Minister of Bengal. 

That this scheme of Communal Provinces, which constitutes 
the Communal Question in its larger intent, can be used as an 
engine of communal tyranny there can be 110 doubt. The system 
of hostages, which is the essence of the scheme of communal 
provinces supported by separate electorates, is indeed insupport- 
able on any ground. If this is the underlying motive of the demand 
for the creation of more Muslim provinces, then no doubt, the 
system resulting from it is a vicious system. 

This analysis leaves no doubt that the communal statutory 
majority based on separate communal electorates and communa 
provinces, especially constituted to enable the statutory majority 
to tyrannize the minority are, undoubtedly, the two evils which 
compose what is called, ' the Communal Problem '. 

For the existence of this problem the Hindus hold the 
Muslims responsible and the Muslims hold the Hindus responsible 
Hindus accuse Muslims of contumacy. Muslims accuse Hindus 
of meanness. Both, however, forget that the communal problem 
exists not because Muslims are extravagant and insolent in their 
demands and Hindus are mean and grudging in their concessions. 
It exists and will exist wherever a hostile majority is brought face 


to face against a hostile minority. Controversies relating to separate 
vs joint electorates, controversies relating to population ratio vs 
weightage are all inherent in a situation where a minority is pitted 
against a majority. The best solution of the communal problem is 
not to have two communities facing each other, one a majority and 
the other a minority, wound up steel-frame of a single government, 

How far does Pakistan approximate to this ideal solution of 
the Communal Question ? 

The answer to this question is quite obvious. If the scheme 
of Pakistan is to follow the present boundaries of the Provinces 
in the North- West and in Bengal, then certainly it does not 
eradicate the evils which lie at the heart of the Communal 
Question. It retains the very elements which give rise to it, 
namely the pitting of a minority against a majority. The 
rule of Hindu minorities by Muslim majorities and the rule of 
Muslim minorities by Hindu majorities is the crying evil of the 
present situation. This very evil will reproduce itself in Pakistan 
if the provinces marked out for it are incorporated into it as they 
are, i. e., with the boundaries drawn as at present. Besides this, the 
evil which gives rise to the Communal Question in its larger intent, 
will not only remain as it is but will assume a new malignity. Under 
the existing system, the power centered in the Communal Provinces 
to do mischief to their hostages is limited by the power which the 
Central Government has over the Provincial Governments. At 
present the hostages are at least within the pale of a Central 
Government which is Hindu in its composition and which has 
power to interfere for their protection. But when Pakistan becomes 
a Muslim state with full sovereignty ovei internal and external affairs 
it would be free from the control of the Central Government 
to which the Hindu minorities could appeal. There will be no 
authority which could interfere on their behalf to curb this power of 
mischief. So that, the position of the Hindus in Pakistan may 
easily become the position of the Armenians under the Truks or of 
the Jews in Tsarist Russia, or in Nazi Germany. Such a scheme 
would be intolerable and the Hindus may well say that they cannot 
agree to Pakistan and leave their co-religionist as a helpless prey to 
the fanaticism of a Muslim National 

Vl] J>AKIS*AN Afcfb COfctMtJNAL 


This, of course, is a very frank statement of the consequences 
which will flow from giving effect to the scheme of Pakistan. But 
care must be taken to locate the source of these consequences. I>o 
they flow from the scheme of Pakistan itself or do the flow from the 
boundaries that accompany it ? If the evils flow from the scheme 
itself, i.e., if they are inherent in it, then of course it is unnecessary for any 
Hindu to waste his time in considering it. He may be well justified 
in summarily dismissing it. On the other hand if the evils are not 
inherent in the scheme but are the result of the boundaries 
accompanying it, then Pakistan reduces itself to a mere question of 
changing the boundaries. 

A study of the question amply supports the view that the evils 
of Pakistan are not inherent in it, but that they are the results of the 
boundaries, which accompany it. That the source of these evils is 
only boundaries, becomes clear if one studies the distribution of 
population. The reasons why these evils will be reproduced within 
Pakistan in the North- West and in the Muslim State in the East is 
because, with the present boundaries, they do not become single 
ethnic states. They remain mixed states composed of a Muslim 
majority and a Hindu minority as before. The evils are the evils 
which are inseparable from a mixed state. If Pakistan is made 
a single unified ethnic state, the evils will automatically vanish. 
There will be no question of separate electorates within Pakistan, 
because in such a homogenous Pakistan there will be no majorities 
to rule and no minorities to be protected. Similarly, there will be 
no majority of one community to hold, in its possession, a minority 
of an opposing community. 

The question therefore is one of demarkation of boundaries and 
reduces itself to this : Is it possible for the boundaries of Pakistan 
to be so fixed, that instead of producing a mixed state composed of 
majorities and minorities, with all the evils attendant upon it, 
Pakistan will be an ethnic state composed of one homogenous 
community namely Muslims ? The answer is that in a large part 
of the area affected by the project of the League, a homogenous 
state can be created by merely shifting the boundaries but in 
the rest homogeneity can be produced only by shifting the 


In this connection I invite the reader to study carefully the 
figures given in the Appendices I, II, III showing the distribution 
of the population in the areas affected, and also the maps 
showing how new boundries can create homogeneous Muslim states. 

Talcing the Punjab, two things must be noted : 

(i) There are certain districts in which the Musalmans predo- 
minate. There are certain districts which the Hindus predominate. 
There are very few in which the two are, more or less, evenly 
distributed ; 

(ii) The districts in which the Muslims predominate and the 
districts in which the Hindus predominate are not interspersed. 
The two sets of districts form two separate areas. 

For the formation of the Eastern Muslim State in Bengal 
one has to take into consideration the distribution of population 
in both the Provinces of Bengal and Assam. Here also four 
things are clear : 

(i) In Bengal there are some districts in which the Muslims 
predominate. In others the Hindus predominate. 

(ii) In Assam also there are some districts in which the Muslims 
predominate. In others the Hindus predominate. 

(iii) Districts in which the Muslims predominate and those in 
which the Hindus predominate are not interspersed. They form 
separate areas. 

(iv) The districts of Bengal and Assam in which the Muslims 
predominate are contiguous. 

Given these facts, it is perfectly possible to create homogenous 
Muslim States out of the Punjab, Bengal and Assam by drawing 
their boundaries in such a way that the areas which are predomi- 
nantly Hindu shall be excluded. That this is possible is shown by 
the maps given in the appendix. 

In the North-West Frontier and Siiid the situation is rather 
hard. How the matter stands in the N. W. F. and Sind may be 
seen by an examination of the data given in the appendices 
numbering IV to VII. As may be seen from the appendices there 
are no districts in which the Hindus in N. W. F. and Sind are 
concentrated. They are scattered and bits of them are to be found 
in almost every district of the two provinces. Appendices IV, V, 
VI and VII shows that the Hindus in Sind and N. W. F. are mostly 


congregated in urban areas of the Districts. In Sind the Hindus 
outnumber the Muslims in most of the towns, while the Muslims 
outnumber the Hindu in villages. In the N. W. K the Muslims 
outnumber the Hindus in towns as well as in the villages. 

The case of the N. W. F. and Sind therefore differs totally from 
the case of the Punjab and Bengal. In the Punjab and Bengal 
owing to the natural sagregation of the Hindus and Muslims in 
different areas it is possible to create a homegenous State by merely 
altering their boundaries, involving the shifting of the population 
in a very small degree. But in the N. W. F. and Sind owing to 
the scattered state of the Hindu population alteration of boundaries 
cannot suffice for creating a homogeneous state. There is the only 
one remedy and that is to shift the population. 

Some scoff at the idea of the shifting and exchange of popula- 
tion. But those who scoff can hardly be aware of the complications 
which a minority problem gives rise to and the failures attendant 
upon almost all the efforts made to sooth there relations. The 
constitutions of the post-war states, as well as the older states 
in Europe which had a minority problem, proceeded on the 
assumption that constitutional safeguards for minorities should 
suffice for their protection and the constitutions of most of the new 
states with majorities and minorities were studded with long lists 
of fundamental rights and safeguards to see that they were not 
violated by the majorities. What was the experience ? Experience 
showed that safeguards did not save the minorities. Even after 
safeguards the same old policy of exterminating the minorities 
continued to hold the field. But, at long last, when the States 
realized that even this ruthless war had failed to solve the problem 
of minorities they agreed that the best way to solve it was for each to 
exchange its alien minorities within, its border, for its own which was 
without its border with a view to bring about homogeneous States. 
This is what happened in Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. Those who 
scoff at the idea of transfer of population will do well to study the 
history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turkey, Greece 
and Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that after trying all possible 
methods of solving the problem it was agreed between these countries 
that the only effective way of solving it was to exchange population. 

416 ttltftm cAsfc AGAINST tAKistAtf {part tt 

The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor 
operation. It involved the transfer of some 20 million people from 
one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three shouldered the 
task and carried it to a successful end. That is because they felt 
that the considerations of communal peace must outweigh every 
other consideration. 

That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for 
communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is no reason 
why Hindus and Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards 
which have proved so unsafe. That, if small countries with limited 
resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria were capable of such 
an undertaking, there is no reason to suppose that what they did 
cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population 
involved is inconsiderable and it would be a height of folly to give 
up a sure way to communal peace because some obstacles in it 
require to be removed. 

There is one point of criticism to which so far no reference has 
been made. As it is likely to be urged I propose to deal with it 
here. It is sure to be asked, how will Pakistan affect^ the position 
of Muslims that will be left in Hindustan ? The question is natural 
because the scheme of Pakistan does seem to concern itself with 
Muslim majorities who do not need protection and abandons the 
Muslim minorities who do. But the point is who can raised it ? 
Surely not the Hindus. Only the Muslims of Pakistan or the 
Muslims of Hindustan can raise it. The question was put to 
Mr. Rehmat Ali, the protagonist of Pakistan and this is the answer 
given by him : 

"How will it affect the position of the forty five million Muslems 
in Hindustan proper ? " 

" The truth is that in this struggle their thought has been more 

than a wrench to me. They are the flesh of our flesj^and the 

soul of our soul. We can never forget them ; nor they, us. Their 

present position and future security is, and shall ever be, a matter of 

great importance to us. As things are at present, Pakistan will not 

adversely affect their position in Hindustan. On the basis of 

population (one Muslem to four Hindus), they will still be entitled 

to the same representation in legislative as well as administrative 

i fields wliicfe they possess t*ow. As to the future, the only effective' 


guarantee we can offer is that of reciprocity, and, therefore, we 
solemnly undertake to give all those safeguards to non-Muslem 
minorities in Pakistan which will be conceded to our Muslim 
minority in Hindustan. 

" But what sustains us most is the fact that they know we are 
proclaiming Pakistan in the highest interest of the 'Millet'. It is 
as much theirs as it is ours. While for us it is a national citadel, 
for them it will ever be a moral anchor. So long as the anchor 
holds, everything is or can be made safe. But once it gives way, 
all will be lost." 

The answer given by the Muslims of Hindustan is equally clear. 
They say "we are not weakened by the separation of Muslims into 
Pakistan and Hindustan. We ai^e better protected by the existence 
of separate Islamic States on the Eastern and Western border of 
Hindustan than we are by their submersion in Hindustan. Who can 
say that they are wrong ? Has it not been shown that Germany as 
an outside state was better able to protect the Sudeten Germans 
in Czechoslovakia than the Sudetens were able to do themselves ?* 

Be that as it may, the question does not concern the Hindus. 
The question that concerns the Hindus is : How far does the creation 
of Pakistan remove the communal question from Hindustan ? That 
is a very legitimate question and must be considered. It must be 
admitted that by the creation of Pakistan Hindustan is not freed of 
the communal question. While Pakistan can be made a homogenous 
state by redrawing its boundaries, Hindustan must remain a composite 
state. The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan though they 
are mostly congregated in towns-and no ingenuity in the matter of 
redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way 
to make Hindustan homogenous is to arrange for exchange of 
population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even 
with the creation of Pakistan the problem of majority vs. minority 
will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce 
disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan. 

* The leaders of the Muslims League -seem to have studied deeply Hitler's bullying 
tactics against Czechoslovakia in the interest of the Studeten Germans and also ^ learned 
the lessons which those tactics teach. Soe their threatening speeches in she Karachi} 
of tbe League held in 1037- 



[part II 

Admitting that Pakistan is not capable of proving a complete 
solution of -the Communal Problem within Hindustan, does it follow 
that the Hindus on that account should reject Pakistan ? Before the 
Hindus draw any such hasty conclusion they should consider the 
following effects of Pakistan. 

First consider the effect of Pakistan on the magnitude of the 
Communal Problem. That can be best gauged by reference to 
the Muslim population as it will be grouped within Pakistan and 


Muslim Population in Hintli'stan. 

1- Total Muslim Popula- 66,442,700 

tion in .British India 
(Excluding Burma 
and Aden). 

2. Muslim Population 47,S97,301 

grouped in Pakis- 
tan and Eastern 
Bengal State. 

3. Balance of Muslims in 18,545,465 

British Hindustan. 

Muslim Population in PuMstiin. 

1. Punjab ... 13,332,460 

2. N. W. F. ... 2,227,303 

3. Sind ... 2,830,800 

4. Baluchistan ... 405,309 

5. Eastern Bengal Muslim 

State : 

(i) Eastern Bengal... 27,497,624 

(ii) Sylhet ... 1,603,805 

Total ... 47,897,301 

What do these figures indicate ? What they indicate is, that 
the Muslims that will be left in British Hindustan will be only 
18,545,465 and the rest 47,897,301 forming a vast majority of the 
total Muslim population will be out of it and will be the subjects of 
Pakistan and the Eastern Muslim States. This distribution of the 
Muslim population, in terms of the communal problem means, that 
while without Pakistan the communal problem involves 6^- crores of 
Muslims, after Pakistan it will involve only 2 crores of Muslims. 
Is this to be no consideration for Hindus who \vant communal peace ? 
To me it seems that if Pakistan does not solve the communal problem 
in Hindustan it enormously reduces its proportion and makes it of 
minor significance and much easier of peaceful solution. 

In the second place, let the Hindus consider the effect of Pakistan 
on the communal representation in the Central Legislature. The 
following table gives the distribution of seats in the Central Legislature 
as prescribed under the Government of India Act and as it would 
fr? if Pakistan came into being. 

chap, vi] 


Name of the 

Distribution of Seats. 

Distribution of seats. 

I. As at present. 

II. After Pakistan. 









Council of 







Federal Assem- 







Percentage of 
Muslim seats 
to tot;il seats. 


:>n of Heats. 

Distribution of seats. 
II. After Pakistan. 

Percentage of 
Muslim seats 
to Hindu seats. 

Percentage of 
Muslim seats 
to total seats. 

Percentage of 
Muslim seats to 
Hindu seats. 




33 1/3 

To bring out clearly the quantitative change in the communal 
distribution of scats which must follow the establishment of Pakistan 
the above figures are reduced to percentages in the table that 
follows : 

Name of the 

Council of State 
Federal Assembly 

From this table one can see what vast changes must follow 
the establishment of Pakistan. Under the Government of India Act 
the ratio of Muslim seats to the total is 33% in both the chambers, 
but to the Hindu seats the ratio is 66 p.c. in the Council of State and. 
80 p.c. in the Assembly almost a position of equality with the 
Hindus. After Pakistan the ratio of Muslim seats to total seats falls 
from 33 1/3 p.c. to 25 p.c. in the Council and to 21 p.c. in the 
Assembly, while the ratio to Hindu seats falls from 66 p.c. to 
33 I /3 P- c - i n ^ ie Council and from 80 p.c. to 40 p.c. in the Assembly. 
The figures assume that the weightage given to the Muslims will 
remain the same even after Hindustan is separated from Pakistan. 
If the present weightage to Muslims is cancelled or reduced there 
would be further improvement in the representation of the Hindus 


But assuming that no change in weightage is made, is this a small 
gain to the Hindus in the matter of representation at the Centre ? 
To me it appears that it is a great improvement in the position of 
the Hindus at the Centre, which would never come to them, if they 
oppose Pakistan. 

These are the material advantages of Pakistan. There is another 
which is psychological. The Muslims, in Southern and Central 
India, draw their inspiration from the Muslims of the North and the 
East. If after Pakistan there is communal peace in the North and 
the East, as there should be, there being no majorities and minorities 
therein, the Hindus may reasonably expect communal peace in 
Hindustan. This severance of the bond between the Muslims of the 
North and the East and the Muslims of Hindustan is another gain 
to the Hindus of Hindustan. 

Thus, taking into consideration these effects of Pakistan, it cannot 
be disputed that if Pakistan does not wholly solve the communal 
problem within Hindustan it does free the Hindus from the 
turbulence of the Muslims as predominant ^partners. It is for the 
Hindus to say whether they will reject such a proposal simply 
because it does not offer a complete solution. Some gain is better 
than much harm* 


One last question and this discussion of Pakistan in relation to 
communal peace may be brought to a close. Will the Hindus and 
Muslims of the Punjab and Bengal agree to redraw the boundaries 
of their provinces to make the scheme of Pakistan as flawless as it 
can be made ? 

As for the Muslims they ought to have no objection to 
redrawing the boundaries. If they do object then it must be said 
that they do not understand the nature of their own demand. 
TM$ is quite possible, since the talk that is going on among Muslim 
protagonists of Pakistan is of a very loose character* Some speak 

Chap. Vl] *>AltISTAfcf AN> CX)MMUNAL WE ACE 11$ 

of Pakistan as a Muslim National State, others speak of it 
as a Muslim National Home. Neither care to know whether 
there is any difference between a National State and a National 
Home. But there can be no doubt that there is a vital difference 
between the two. What that difference is was discussed at great 
length at the time of constituting in Palestine a Jewish national home. 
It seems that a clear conception of what this difference is, is necessary, 
if the likely Muslim opposition to the redrawing of the boundaries 
is to be overcome. 

According to a leading authority : 

"A National Home connotes a territory in which a people, - 
without receiving the rights of political sovereignty has nevertheless 
a recognised legal position and receives the opportunity of develop- 
ing its moral, social, and intellectual ideals." 

The British Government itself, in its basic statement on 
Palestine policy issued in 1922, thus defined its conception of the 
national home : 

"When it is asked whit is meant by the development of the 
Jewish national home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is 
not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of 
Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing 
Jewish Community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the 
world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish 
people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an 
interest and a pride. But in order that this community should 
have the best prospect of free development and provide a full 
opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is 
essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and 
not on sufferance. This is the reason why it is necessary that the 
existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be 
internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized 
to rest upon ancient historic connection." 

From this it will be clear that there is an essential difference 
between a National Home and a National State. The difference 
consists in this : In the case of a National Home the people who 
constitute it do not receive the right of political sovereignty over the 
territory and the right of imposing their nationality on others also 
living in that territory. AH that they get, is a recognized legal 
position guarenteeing them the right to live as citizens and freedom 


to maintain their culture. In the case of a National State, people 
constituting it, receive the rights of political sovereignty with the right 
of imposing their nationality upon the rest. 

This difference is very important and it is in the light of this 

that one must examine their demand for Pakistan. AVhat do the 

Muslims want Pakistan for ? If they want Pakistan to create 

a National Home for Muslims then there is no necessity for Pakistan. 

In the Pakistan Provinces they already have their National Home 

with the legal right to live and advance their culture. If they want 

Pakistan to be a National Muslim State then they are claiming the right 

of political sovereignty over the territory included in it. This they are 

entitled to do. But the question is should they be allowed to retain 

within the boundaries of these Muslim States Non- Muslim minorities 

as their subjects with a right to impose upon them the nationality of 

these Muslim States. No doubt such a right is accepted to be an 

accompaniment of political sovereignty. But it is equally true 

that in all mixed States this right has become a source of mischief in 

modern times. To ignore the possibilities of such mischief in the 

creation of Pakistan and the Eastern Muslim State, will be to omit 

to read the bloody pages of recent history on which have been 

recorded the atrocities, murders, plunders and arsons committed by 

the Turks, Greeks, Bulgars, and the Czechs against their minorities. 

It is not possible to take away this right from a state of imposing its 

nationality upon its subjects because it is incidental to political 

severeignty. But it is possible not to provide any opportunity for 

the exercise of such a right. This can be done by allowing the 

Muslims to have National Muslim States but to make such states 

strictly homogeneous, strictly ethnic states. Under no circumstances 

can they be allowed to carve out mixed states composed of Muslims 

opposed to Hindus, with the former superior in member to the latter. 

This is probably not contemplated by the Muslims who are the 
authors of Pakistan. It was certainly not contemplated by 
Sir M. Iqbal, the originator of the scheme. In his Presidential 
address to the Muslim League in 1930 he expressed his willingness 
to agree to " the exclusion of Ambala Division and perhaps of some 
other districts where non-Muslims predominate " on the ground that 
such exclusion " will make it less extensive and more Muslim in 


population ". On the other hand it may be that those who are 
putting forth the Scheme of Pakistan do contemplate that it will 
include the Punjab and Bengal within their present boundaries. To 
them it must become clear, that to insist upon the present boundaries 
is sure to antagonize even those Hindus who have an open mind 
on the question. Hindus can never be expected to consent to the 
inclusion of the Hindus in a Muslim State deliberately created for 
the preservation and propagation of the Muslim faith and Muslim 
culture. Not only Hindus will oppose but Muslims will be found 
out. For, Muslims, if they insist upon the retention of the present 
boundaries, will open themselves to the accusation that behind 
their demand for Pakistan there is something more sinister than 
a mere desire to create a National Home or a National State, 
namely to perfect the scheme of Hindu hostages in Muslim hands 
by increasing the balance of Muslim majorities against Hindu 
minorities in the Muslim areas. 

So much for considerations which ought to weigh with the 
Muslims in the matter of changing the provincial boundaries to 
make Pakistan as far as possible a purely ethnic state, free from the 
complications of majorities and minorities. 

Now as to the considerations which ought to weigh with the 
Hindus of the Punjab and Bengal. This is a more difficult of the 
two parties to the question. In this connection it is enough to 
consider the reaction of the high caste Hindus only. For it is they 
who guide the Hindu masses and form Hindu opinion. Unfortunately 
the high caste Hindus are bad as leaders. They have a trait of character 
which often leads the Hindus to disaster. This trait is formed by 
their acquisitive instinct and aversion to share with others the good 
things of life. They have a monopoly of education and wealth and 
with wealth and education they have captured the State. To keep 
this monopoly to themselves has been the ambition and goal of 
their life. Charged with this selfish idea of class domination they 
take every move to exclude the lower classes of Hindus from 
wealth, education and power, the surest and the most effective 
being the preparation of scriptures, inculcating upon the minds of 
the lower classes of Hindus that their duty in life was only to servs 
the higher classes. In keeping this monopoly in their own hands, 

CA&fe AGA&tetf PARIAN {part it 

excluding the lower classes from any share in it, the high caste 
Hindus have succeeded for a long time and beyond measure* It is 
only recently that the lower class Hindus rose in revolt against this 
monopoly by starting the Non-Brahmin Patties in the Madras 
and the Bombay Presidencies and C. P. Notwithstanding the high 
caste Hindus have successfuly maintained their privileged position. 
This attitude of keeping education, wealth and power as a close 
preserve for themselves and refusing to share it, which the high 
caste Hindus have developed in their relation with the lower 
classes of Hindus, is sought to be extended by them to the 
Muslims. They want to exclude the Muslims from place and power 
as they have done the lower class Hindus. This trait of the high 
caste Hindus is the key to understand their politics. 

Two illustrations reveal this trait of theirs. The Hindus in 
1929 opposed the separation of Sindh from Bombay Presidency 
before the Simon Commission, strenuously and vehemently. But 
in 1915 the Hindus of Sind put forth the opposite plea and wanted 
Sind to be separated from Bombay. The reason in both the cases 
was the same. In 1915 there was no representative Government 
in Sind, which if there was would be undoubtedly a Muslim Govern- 
ment. The Hindus advocated separation because in the absence 
of a Muslim Government they could obtain jobs in Government in 
a greater and greater degree. In 1929 they objected to separation 
of Sind because they knew that a separate Sind will be under 
a Muslim Government, and a Muslim Government was sure to 
disturb their monopoly and displace them to make room for Muslim 
candidates. The opposition of the Bengali Hindus to the Parti- 
tion of Bengal is another illustration of this trait of the high caste 
Hindus. The Bengali Hindu had the whole of Bengal, Bihar, 
Orissa, Assam and even U. P. for his pasture. He had captured 
the civil service in all these Provinces. The partition of Bengal 
meant a diminution in the area of this pasture: It meant that 
the Bengali Hindu was to be ousted from Eastern Bengal 
to make room for the Bengali Musalmans who had so far no 
place in the civil service of Bengal. The opposition to the 
partition of Bengal on the part of the Bengali Hindus was due 
principally to their desire not to allow the Bengali Musalmans to 


take their places in Eastern Bengal. Little did the Bengali Hindus 
dream that by opposing partition and at the same time demading 
Swaraj he was preparing the way for making the Musalmans the 
rulers of both Eastern as well as Western Bengal. 

These thoughts occur to one's mind because one fears that the 
high caste Hindus blinded by their hereditary trait might oppose 
Pakistan for no other reason except that it limits the field for their 
self-seeking careers* Among the many reasons that might come in 
the way of Pakistan one need not be surprised if one of them 
happens to be the selfishness of the high caste Hindus. 

There are two alternatives for the Hindus of the Punjab and 
Bengal and they may be asked to face them fairly and squarely. 
The Muslims in the Punjab number 13,332,460 and the Hindus 
with Sikhs and the rest number 11,392,732. The difference is only 
1,939,728. This means that the Muslim majority in the Punjab is 
only a majority of 8 p. c. Given these facts, which is better ? To 
oppose Pakistan by refusing to redraw the boundaries and allow the 
Muslim majority of 54 p. c. to rule the Hindu minority of 46 p. c 
or to redraw the boundaries, to allow Muslims and Hindus to be 
under separate national states, and thus rescue the whole body of 
Hindus from the terrors of the Muslim rule ? 

The Muslims in Bengal number 27,497,624 and the Hindus num- 
ber 21,570,407. The difference is only of 5,927,217. This means that 
the Muslin majority in Bengal is only a majority of 12 p.c. Given 
these facts, which is better ? To oppose the creation of a National 
Muslim State out of Eastern Bengal and Sylhet by refusing to 
redraw the boundaries and allow the Muslim Majority of only 12 
p.c. to rule the Hindu minority of 44 p. c. ; or to consent to redraw 
the boundaries, to have Muslims and Hindus placed under separate 
National States, and thus rescue the 44 p. c. of Hindus from the 
horrors of Muslim rule ? 

Let the Hindus of Bengal and the Punjab consider which alter- 
native they should prefer. It seems to me that the moment has come 
when the high caste Hindus of Bengal and the Punjab should be told 
that if they propose to resist Pakistan, because it cuts off a field for 
gainful employment, :they are committing the greatest blunder. 


The time for successfully maintaining in their own hands a 
monopoly of place and power is gone. They may cheat the lower 
order of Hindus in the name of nationalism. But they cannot cheat 
the Muslim majorities in Muslim Provinces and keep their monopoly 
of place and power. The determination to live under a Muslim 
majority and to hope to gain more than your share may be a very 
courageous thing. But it is certainly not a wise thing. Because, 
the chances are that you will lose all. On the other hand, if the 
Hindus of Bengal and the Punjab agree to separate, true, they will 
not get more, but they will certainly not lose all. 


Having stated the Muslim case for Pakistan an f l the Hindu 
case against it, it is necessary to turn to the alternatives to Pakistan*, 
if there be any. In forming ones judgement cm Pakistan^ one 
must take into account tlie alternatives to it- Either there is no 
alternative to Pakistan : or there is an alternative to Pakistan, 
but it is worse than Pakistan* Thirdly ^ one must also take into 
consideration what would he the consequences, if neither Pakistan 
nor its alternative is found acceptable to tlie parties concerned- 
TJie relevant data having a hearing on these points is presented 
in this part under the following Jteads : 

( 1) Hindu alternative to Pakistan. 

(2 ) Mnslitn alternative to Pakistan- 

(3) Lessons from ahroad- 



Thinking of the Hindu alternative to Pakistan, the scheme that 
at once conies to one's mind is the one put forth by the late 
Lala Hardyal in 1925. It was published in the form of a statement 
which appeared in the Pratap of Lahore. In this statement, which 
he called his political testament, Lala Hardyal said : * 

" I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and 
of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars : (i) Hindu Sangathan, 
(2) Hindu Raj, (3) ShuJdhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and 
Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the frontiers. So long as the Hindu 
nation does not accomplish these four things, the safety of our 
children and great-grand-children will be ever in danger, and the 
safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has 
but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the 
Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of 
Hinduism, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab 
and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign 
matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. 
Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part 

of India, bvit are at present under the domination of Islam Just 

as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions 
in Afghanistan and the frontier territory ; otherwise it is useless 
to win Swaraj. For, mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. 
If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah 
will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the 

frontiers ; but it cannot always be If Hindus want to protect 

themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and 
convert all the mountain tribes." 

* Sea Times oflndv* dated 25-7-1926, " Through Indian Eyes" 


I do not know how many Hindus would come forward to give 
their support to this scheme of Lala Hardyal as an alternative to 

In the first place Hindu Religion is not a proselytising religion. 
Maulana Mahomed Ali was quite right when, in the course of 
his address as President of the Congress, he said : 

"Now, this has been my complaint for a long time against 
Hinduism, and on one occasion, lecturing at Allahabad in T 9O7- 
I had pointed out the contrast between Musalmans and Hindus, 
by saying that the worst that can be said of a Muslim was that he 
had a tastelessness which he called a dish fit for kings, and wanted 
all to share it with him, thrusting it down the throats of such as did 
not relish it and would rather not have it, while his Hindu brother 
who prided himself on his cookery, retired into the privacy of his 
kitchen and greedily devoured all that he had cooked, without 
permitting even the shadow of his brother to fall on his food, or 
sparing even a crumb for him. This was said not altogether in 
levity ; and in fact, I once asked Mahatma Gandhi to justify this 
feature of his faith to me." 

What answer the Mahatma gave to his question Mr. Mahomed 
Ali did not disclose. The fact however is that however much the 
Hindus may wish, Hindu religion cannot become a missionary 
religion like Islam or Christianity. It is riot that the Hindu religion 
was never a missionary religion. On the contrary it was once 
a missionary religion indeed must have been a missionary religion 
otherwise it is difficult to explain how it could have spread over 
an area so vast as the Indian continent.* But once a misssionary 
religion the Hindu religion perforce ceased to be a missionary 
religion after the time when the Hindu society developed its system 
of castes. For, caste is incompatible with conversion. To be able 
to convert a stranger to its religion, it is not enough for a community 
to offer its creed. It must be in a position to admit the convert to 
jts social life and to absorb and assimilate him among its kindred. 
It is not possible for the Hindu Society to satisfy this prerequisite of 
affective conversion. There is nothing to prevent a Hindu, with 
a missionary zeal, to proceed to cxmvert an alien to the Hindu faith. 

* On the question whether the Hindu Religion was a missionary Religion and if it was 
why it ceased to be so, see my essay on Caste and Conversion in the Annual Number of the 
Telgti Samaohar lor 


But before he converts, he is bound to be confronted with the 
question ; What is to be the caste of the convert ? This is not an 
easy question to answer. According to the Hindus, for a person 
to belong to a caste he must be born in it. A convert is not born 
in a caste, therefore he belongs to no caste. This is also an important 
question. More than political or religious, man is a social 
animal. He may not have, need not have, religion ; he may not 
have, need not have, politics. He must have society ; he cannot do 
without society. But, for Hindus to be without caste, is to be 
without society. And, where there is no society for the covert there 
can be no conversion. So long as Hindu society is fragmented in 
autonomous and autogenic castes, Hindu religion cannot be 
a missionary religion. The conversion of the Afghans and the 
frontier tribes to Hinduism is therefore an idle dream. 

In the second place, Lula Hardyal's scheme must call for 
financial resources the immensity of which it is hardly possible to 
compute. Who can furnish the funds necessary for the conversion 
of the Afghans and the frontier tribesmen to Hinduism ? The 
Hindus, having ceased to convert others to their faith for a long 
time, have also lost the zeal for conversion. "Want of zeal is bound 
to affect the question of finances. Further, Hindu society being 
moulded in the cast of the Cfiaturvariva wealth has, from very 
ancient times, been most unevenly distributed. It is only the Baniya 
who is the heir to wealth and property among the Hindus. There 
are of course the landlords who are the creation of foreign invaders 
or native rebels, but they are not as numerous as the Baniya. The 
Baniya is money- mad and his pursuits are solely for private gain. 
He knows no other use of money except to hold it and to transmit 
it to his descendants. Spread of religion or acquisition and 
promotion of culture do not interest him. Even decent living has 
no place in his budget. This has been his tradition for ages. If 
money is excepted, he is much above the brute in the conception 
and manner of life. Only one new service, on the expenditure side, 
has found a place in his budget. That service is politics. This 
has happened since the entry of Mr. Gandhi as a political leader. 
That new service is the support of Gandhian politics. Here again 
the reason is not love of politics. The reason is to make private 

WHAT, IF fcroT PAKISTAN [part 1 

gain out of public affairs. What hope that such men will spend* 
money on such bootless cause as the spread of Hindu religion 
among the Afghans and Frontier Tribes ? 

Thirdly, there is the question of facilities for con version that 
may be available in Afghanistan. Lala Hardyal evidently thought 
that it is possible to say in Afghanistan, with the same impunity as 
in Turkey, that the Koran is wrong or that is out of date. Only one 
year before the publication of his political testament by Lala Hardyal 
i. e. in 1924 one Niamatulla a follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahamed of 
Quadiyan who claimed to be the messiah and Mahdi and 
a prophet of a sort was stoned to death* at Kabul by the order of 
the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of Afghanistan. The crime of this 
man was as reported by a Khilafat paper, that he was professing 
and preaching ideas and beliefs inconsistent with Islam and Shariat. 
This man, sa^b the same paper, was stoned to death according to the 
agreeing judgements of the first Sharai (cannon) Court, the central 
Appellate Court and the Ulema and Divines of the final Appellate 
Committee of the Ministry of Justice. In the light of these 
difficulties the scheme must be said to be wild in its conception 
and is sure to prove ruinous in its excecution. It is adventurous 
in character and is too fantastic to appeal to any reasonable men 
except perhaps some fanatical Arya Sarnajists of the Punjab. 


The stand taken by the Hindu Mahasabha has been defined by 
Mr. V. D. Savarkar, the president of the Sabha, in his presidential 
addresses at the annual sessions of the Sabha. As defined by him 
the Hindu Maha Sabha is against Pakistan and proposes to resist 
it by all means. What these means are we do not know. It may 
however be said that force, coercion and resistance are only 
negative alternatives and only Mr. Savarkar and the Hindu Maha 
Sabha cari* say how far these means will succeed. 

* Btts Report in Time* of India 27-11-24 f* Through Indian Ey* 


It would however not be fair to Mr. Savarkar to say that he 
has only a negative attitude towards the claim put forth by the Muslims 
of India. For, he has put forth his positive proposals in reply to them. 

To understand his positive proposals, one must grasp some of 
his basic conceptions. Mr. Savarkar lays great stress on a proper 
understanding of the terms, Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindudom 
He says * 

"In expounding the Ideology of the Hindu movement, it is 
absolutely necessary to have a correct grasp of the meaning attach- 
ed to these three terms. From the word "Hindu" has been 
coined the word "Hinduism" in English. It means the schools or 
system of Religion the Hindus follow. The second word "Hindutva" 
is far more comprehensive and refers not only to the religious 
aspects of the Hirrlu people as the word "Hinduism" does but 
comprehends even their cultural, linguistic, social and political 
aspects as well. It is more or less akin to "Hindu Polity " and its 
nearly exact translation would be "Hinduness". The third word 
" Hindudom" means the Hindu people spoken of collectively. It is 
a collective name for the Hindu World, just as Islam denotes the 
Moslem World." 

Mr. Savarkar takes it as a gross misrepresentation to say that 
the Hindu Maha Sabha is a religious body. In refutation of this 
misrepresentation Mr. Savarkar says : f 

"It has come to my notice that a very large section of the English 

educate 1 Hindus holds back from joining the Hindu Maha Sabha 

under the erroneous idea that it is an exclusively Religious organi- 
zation-something like a Christian Mission. Nothing could be far 
from truth. The Hindu Maha Sabha is not a Hindu Mission. It 
leaves Religious questions regarding theism, monotheism, Pan- 
theism or even atheism to be discussed and determined by the 
different Hindu schools of religious persuations. It is not a Hindu 
Dharma Maha Sabha, but a Hindu-National Maha Sabha. Consequ- 
ently by its very constitution it is debarred to associate itself exclusively 
as a partisan with any particular religious school or sect even within 
the Hindu fold. As a national Hindu body it will of course propagate 
and defend the National Hindu Church comprising each and all 
religions of Hindusthani origin against any non-Hindu attack or 

* Speech at the Calcutta Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in December 1939, 
page 14. 

f Ibid page 2$. 


encroachment. But the sphere of its activity is far more comprehensive 
than that of an exclusively religious body. The Hindu Maha Sabha 
indentifies itself with the National life of Hindudom in all its entirety, 
in all its social, economical, cultural and above all political aspects and 
is pledged to protect and promote all that contributes to the freedom, 
strength and glory of the Hindu Nation ; and as an indispensable 
means to that end to attain Purna Swaraj y a, absolute political In- 
dependence of Hindusthan by all legitimate and proper means." 

Mr. Savarkar does not admit that the Hindu Maha Sabha is 
started to counteract the Muslim League and that as soon as the 
problems arising out of the Communal Award are solved to the satis- 
faction of both Hindus and Musalmans the Hindu Maha Sabha will 
vanish. Mr. Savarkar insists that the Hindu Maha Sabha must 
continue to function even after India becomes politically free. 
He says : * 

" Many a superficial critic seems to fancy that the Maha 

Sabha was only contiived to serve as a make-weight, as a re-action 
checkmating the Moslem League or the anti-Hindu policy of the present 
leaders of the Congress and will be out of court or cease automati- 
cally to function as soon as it is shorned of this spurious excuse 
to exist. But if the aims and object of the Maha Sabha mean any- 
thing it is clear that it was not the outcome of any frothy effusion, any 
fussy agitation to remove a grievance here or oppose a seasonal party 
there. The fact is that every organism whether individual or social 
which is living and deserves to survive throws out offensive and 
defensive organs as soon as it is brought to face adversely changing 
environments. The Hindu Nation too as soon as it recovered and 
freed itself from the suffocating grip of the pseudo-Nationalistic 
ideology of the Congress brand developed a new organ to battle in the 
struggle for existence under the changed conditions of modem age. 
This was the Hindu Maha Sabha. It grew up of a fundamental necessity 
of the National life and not of any ephemeral incident. The constru- 
ctive side of its aims and objects make it amply clear that its mission 
is as abiding as the life of the Nation itself. But that apart, even the 
day to day necessity of adapting its policy to the ever changing 
political currents make it incumbent on Hindudom to have an exclusi- 
vely Hindu organization independent of any moral or intellectual 
servility or subservience to any non-Hindu or jointly representative 
institution, to guard Hindu interest and save them from being 

* Ibid pages 24-27, 


jeopardised. It is not so only under the present political subjection 
of Hindustan but it will be all the more necessary to have some such 
exclusively Hindu organization, some such Hindu Maha Sabha in 
substance whether it is identical with this present organization 01 
otheiwise to serve as a watchtower at the gates of Hindudom for at 
least a couple of centuries to come, even after Hindustan is partially 
or wholly free and a National Parliament controls its political destiny. 

Because, unless something altogether cataclysmic in nature upsets 
the whole political order of things in the world which practical politics 
cannot envisage today; all that can be reasonably expected in imme- 
diate future is that we Hindus may prevail over England and compel 
her to recognise India as a self-governing unit with the status 
contemplated in the West Minster Statute. Now a National Parliament 
in such a self-governing India can only reflect the electorate as it is, 
the Hindus and the Moslems as we find them, their relations a bit 
bettei-ed, perhaps a bit worsened. No realist can be blind to the 
probability that the extra-territorial designs and the secret urge goading 
on the Moslems to transform India into a Moslem state may at any time 
confront the Hindustani state even under self-government either with 
a Civil War or treacherous overtures to alien invaders by the Moslems. 
Then again there is every likelihood that there will ever continue at 
least for a century to come a danger of fanatical riots, the scramble for 
services, legislative seats, weightages out of proportion to their 
population on the part of the Moslem minority and consequently 
a constant danger threatening internal peace. To checkmate this 
probability which if we are wise we must always keep in view even 
after Hindustan attains the status of a self-governing country, 
a powerful and exclusive organization of Hindudom like the Hindu 
Maha Sabha will always prove a sure and devoted source of strength, 
a reserve force for the Hindus to fall back upon to voice their grievances 
more effectively than the joint Parliament can do, to scent danger 
ahead, to warn the Hindus in time against it arid to fight out if needs 
be any treacherous design to which the joint state itself may unwittingly 
fall a victim. 

The History of Canada, of Palestine, of the movement of the Young 
Turks will show you that in every state where two or more such 
conflicting elements as the Hindus and Moslems in India happen to 
exist as constituents, the wiser of them has to keep its exclusive 
organization in tact, strong and watchful to defeat any attempt at 
betrayal or capture of the National State by the opposite party ; 
especially so if that party has extra-territorial affinities, religious or 
cultural, with alien bordering states." 


Having stated what is Hindustan, and what is Hindu Maha 
Sabha, Mr* Savarkar next proceeds to define his conception of 
Swaraj. According to Mr. Savarkar * 

" Swaraj to the Hindus must mean only that in which their " Swatva ", 
their "Hindutva" can assert itself without being overlorded by any 
non-Hindu people, whether they be Indian Territorials or extra- 
Territorials some Englishmen are arid may continue to be 
territorially born Indians. Can therefore, the overlordship of these 
Anglo-Indians be a "Swaraj y a" to the Hindus ? Aurangajeb or Tipu 
were hereditary Indians, nay, were the sons of converted Hindu 
mothers. Did that mean that the rule of Aurangajob or Tipu was 
a "Swarajya" to the Hindus ? No ! although they were territorially 
Indians they proved to be the worst enemies of Hindudom and 
therefore, a Shivaji, a Gobindsingh, a Pratap or the Peshwas had to 

fight against the Moslem domination and establish real Hindu 

As part of his Swaraj Mr. Savarkar insists upon two things. 

First, the retention of the name Hindustan as the proper name 
for India.f 

The name " Hindustan " must continue to be the appellation of 
our country. Such other names as India, Hind etc. being derived 
from the same original word Sindhu may be used but only to signify 
the same sense-the land of the Hindus, a country which is the abode 
of the Hindu Nation. Aryavarta, Bharat-Bhumi and su^h other names 
are of course the ancient and the most cherished ephithets of our 
Mother Land and will continue to appeal to the cultured elite. In 
this insistence that the Mother Land of the Hindus must be called 
but " Hindusthan, " no encroachment or humiliation is implied in 
connection with any of our non-Hindu countrymen. Our Parsee and 
Christian countrymen are already too akin to us culturally and are too 
patriotic and the Anglo-Indians too sensible to icfuse to fall in line 
with us Hindus on so legitimate a ground. So far as our Moslem 
countrymen are concerned it is useless to conceal the fact that some 
of them are already inclined to look upon this molehill also as an 
Insuperable mountain in their way to Hindu-Moslem unity. But 
they should remember that the Moslems do not dwell only in India 
nor are the Indian Moslems the only heroic remnats of the Faithful 
in Islam. China has crores of Moslems, Greece, Palestine and even 

* Ibid page 18 
f Ibid pages 19-30 


Hungary and Poland have thousands of Moslems amongst their 
nationals. But being there a minority, only a community, their 
existence in these countries has never been advanced as a ground 
to change the ancient names of these countries which indicate the 
abodes of those races whose overwhelming majority owns the land. 
The country of the Poles continues to be Poland and of the Greecians 
as Greece. The Moslems there did not or dared not to distort them 
but are quite content to distinguish themselves Polish Moslems or 
Greeciaii Muslims or Chinese Moslems when occasion arises. So also 
our Moslem countrymen may distinguish themselves nationally or 
territorially whenever the} 71 want, as " Hindusthanee Moslems " 
without compromising in the least their separateness as a Religious 
or Cultural entity. Nay, the Moslems have been calling themselves 
as " Hindusthanis " ever since their advent in India, ot their own 

" But if inspite of it all some irascible Moslem sections amongst 
our countrymen object even to this name of our Country, that is no 
reason why we should play cowards to our own conscience. We 
Hindus must not betray or break up the continuity of our Nation 
from the Sindhus in Rugveclic days to the Hindus of our own 
generation which is implied in " Hindustan, " the accepted appellation 
of our Mother Land. Just as the land of the Germans is Germany, 
of the English England, of the Turks Turkisthan, of the Afghans 
Afghanisthan even so we must have it indelibly impressed on the 
map of the oarth for all times to come a "Hindustan" the land of 
the Hindus. 

Second is the retention of Sanskrit as sacred language, Hindi as 
national language and Nagari as the script of Hindudom.* 

The Sanskrit shall be our "*5TO1*T," our sacred language and the 
"Sanskrit Nishtha" Hindi, the Hindi which is derived from Sanskrit 
and draws its nourishment from the latter, is our " ^ifJ^ITOf " our 
current national language besides being the richest and the most 
cultured of the ancient languages of the world, to us Hindus the 
Sanskrit is the holiest tongue of tongues. Our scriptures, history, 
philosophy and culture have their roots so deeply imbedded in the 
Sanskrit literature that it forms veritably the brain of our Race. 
Mother of the majority of our mother tongues, she has suckled the 
rest of them at her breast. All Hindu languages current today whether 
derived from Sanskrit or grafted on to it can only grow and flourish 

* Ibid., pages 21 > 22, 23. 

WHAT, UF NOT ^AltlSTfAN [p&Tt Hi 

on the sap of life they imbibe from Sanskrit. The Sanskrit 
language therefore must ever be an indispensable constituent of the 
classical course for Hindu youths. 

In adopting the Hindi as the National tongue of Hindudom no 
humiliation or any invidious distinction is implied as regards 
other provincial tongues. We are all as attached to our provincial 
tongues as to Hindi and they will all grow and flourish in 
their respective spheres. In fact some of them are today more 
progressive and richer in literature. But nevertheless, taken all in all 
the Hindi can serve the purpose of a National Pan-Hindu Language 
best. It must also be remembered that the Hindi is not made 
a National Language to order. The fact is that long before either the 
English or even the Moslems stepped in India the Hindi in its 
general form had already come to occupy the position of a National 
tongue throughout Hindustan. The Hindu pilgrim, the tradesman, 
the tourist, the soldier, the Pandit travelled up and down from Bengal 
to Sind and Kashmere to Kameshwar by making himself understood 
from locality to lacality through Hindi. Just as the Sanskrit was the 
National langnage of the Hindu intellectual world even so Hindi has 
been for at least a thousand years in the past the National Indian 
Tongue of the Hindu comimmalit)^ 

By Hindi we of course mean the pure " Sanskrit Nistha " Hindi, 
as we find it for example in the " Satyartha Prakash " written by 
Maharsi Dayanand Saraswati. How simple and untainted with a 
single unnecessary foreign word is that Hindi and how expressive 
withal ! It may be mentioned in passing that Swami Dayanandji was 
about the first Hindu leader who gave conscious and definite expression 
to the view that Hindi should be the Pan-Hindu National language of 
India. t This Sanskrit Nistha " Hindi has nothing to do with that 
hybrid, the so-called Hindusthani which is being hatched up by the 
Wardha scheme. It is nothing short of a linguistic monstrosity and 
must be ruthlessly suppressed. Not only that but it is our bounden 
duty to oust out as ruthlessly all unnecessory alien words whether 
Arabian or English, from every Hindu tongue whether provincial 
or dilectical 

" Our Sanskrit alphabetical order is phonetically about the most 

perfect which the world has yet devised and almost all our current 
Indian scripts already follow it. The Nagari Script too follows this 
order* X-ik^ the Hindi language the Nagari Script too has already been 
current for centuries all over India amongst the Hindu literary circles 
for somfc two <^0^saicrf years a nay rate in the jw&t apd wits 


popularly nick-named as the "Shastri Lipi" the script of our Hindu 

Scriptures It is a matter of common knowledge that if Bengali or 

Gujarathi is printed in Nagari it is more or less understood by readers 
in several other provinces. To have only one common language 
throughout Hindustan at a stroke is impracticable and unwise. But 
to have the Nagari script as the only common script throughout 
Hindudom is much more feasible. Nevertheless,it should be borne in 
mind that the different Hindu scripts current in our different provinces 
have a future of their own and may flourish side by side with the 
Nagari. All that is immediately done indispensable in the common 
interest of Hindudom as a whole is that the Nagari Script must be 
made a compulsary subject along with the Hindi language in every 
school in the case of Hindu students." 

What is to be the position of the Non-Hindu minorites under 
the Swaraj as contemplated by Mr. Savarkar ? On this question this 
is what Mr. Savarkar has to say : * 

"When once the Hindu Maha Sabha not only accepts but 
maintains the principles of " one man one vote " and the public 
services to go by merit alone added to the fundamental rights and 
obligations to be shared by all citizens alike irrespective of any 

distinction of Race or Religion any further mention of 

minority rights is on principle not only unnecessary but self-contra- 
dictory. Because it again introduces a consciousness of majority 
and minority 011 Communal basis. But as practical politics requires 
it and as the Hindu Sanghatanists want to relieve our non-Hindu 
country-men of even a ghost of suspicion, we are prepared to 
emphasise that the legitimate rights of minorities with regard to 
their Religion, Culture, and Language will be expressly guaranteed : 
on one condition only that the equal rights of the majority also 
must not in any case be encroached upon or abrogated. Every 
minority may have seperate schools to train up their children in 
their own tongue, their own religious or cultural institutions and can 
receive Government help also for these, but always in proportion 
to the taxes they pay into the common exchequer. The same 
principle must of course hold good in case of the majority too. 

Over and above this, in case the constitution is not based on joint 
electorates and on the unalloyed National principle of one man 
one vote, but is based on the communal basis then those minorities 
who wish to have seperate electorate or reserve seats will be allowed 

* Ibid 

WHAT, IF NOT t>ARisTAN [part ill 

to have them, but always in proportion to their population and 
provided that it does not deprive the majority also of an enual right 
in proportion to its population too. 

That being the position assigned to the minorities Mr. Savarkar 
concludes* that under his scheme of Swaraj 

" The Moslem minority in India will have the right to be 

treated as equal citizens, enjoying equal protection and civic rights 
in proportion to their population. The Hindu majority will not 
encroach on the legitimate rights of non-Hindu minority. But 
in no case can the Hindu majority resign its right which as a 
majority it is entitled to exercise under any Democratic and legitimate 
constitution. The Moslem minority in particular has not obliged 
the Hindus by remaining in minority and therefore, they must remain 
satisfied with the status they occupy and with the legitimate share 
of civic and political rights that is their proportionate due. It would 
be simply preposterous to endow the Moslem minority with the 
right of exercising a practical veto on the legitimate rights and 
previleges of the majority and call it a "Swarajya". The Hindus do 
not want a change of masters, are not going to struggle and fight and 
die only to replace an Edward by an Aurangajeb simply because the 
latter happens to be born within Indian borders, but they want 
henceforth to be masters themselves in their ONVII house, in their 
own Land/' 

And it is because he wants his Swaraj to bear the stamp of 
being a Hindu Raj that Mr. Savarkar wants that India should have 
the appellation of Hindustan. 

This structure has been reared by Mr. Savarkar on two propo- 
sitions which he regards as fundamental. 

First is that the Hindus are a nation by themselves. He 
enunciates this proposition with great elaboration and vehemance. 
Saysf Mr. Savarkar : 

" In my Presidential speech at Nagpur I had, for the first time in 
the history of our recent politics pointed out in bold relief that the 
whole Congress ideology was vitiated ab initio by its uiiwitted 
assumption that the territorial unity, a common habitat, was the 
only factor that constituted and ought to and must constitute 

*Ibid page 16. 
-fllnd pages 14-17. 


a Nation. This conception of a Territorial Nationality has since 
then received a rude shock in Europe itself from which it was 
imported wholesale to India and the present Weir has justified my 
assertion by exploding the myth altogether. All Nations carved 
out to order on the Territorial design without any other common 
bond to mould each of them into a national being have gone to lack 
and ruin, tumbled down like a house of cards. Poland and 
Czechoslovakia will ever serve us a stem warning against any such 
efforts to frame heterogeneous peoples into such hot-potch Nations, 
based only on the shifting sands of the conception of Territorial 
Nationality, not cemente:! by any Cultural, Racial or Historical 
affinities and consequently having no common will to incorporate 
themselves into a Nation. These treaty-Nations broke up at the 
first opportunity the)" got : German, part of them went over to 
Germany, the Russian to Russia, Czechs to Czechs, and Poles to 
Poles. The cultural, linguistic, historical and such other organic 
affinities proved stronger than the territorial one. Only those 
Nations have persisted in maintaining their National unity and 
identity during the lust three to four centuries in Europe which had 
developed Racial, Linguistic, Cultural and such other organic 
affinities in addition to their Territorial unity or even at times inspite 
of it and consequently willed to be homogeneous National units 
such as England, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal etc. 

Judged by any and all of these tests which go severally and colle- 
ctively to form such an homogeneous and organic Nation, in India 
we Hindus are marked out as an abiding Nation by ourselves. Not 
only we own a common Father Land, a Territorial unity, but what 
is scarcely found anywhere else in the world we have a common 
Holy Land which is identified with our common Father Land. This 
Bharat Bhumi, this Hindustan, India is both our f^P^ and 3^*t- 
Our patriotism therefore is doubly sure. Then we have common 
affinities Cultural, Religious, Historical, Linguistic, and Racial which 
through the process of countless centuries of association, and assimi- 
lation moulded us into a homogeneous and organic Nation and above 
all induced a will to lead a corporate and common National Life. 
The Hindus are no treaty Nation but an organic National Being. 

On more pertinent point must be met as it often misleads our 
Congresssite Hindu brethern in particular. The homogeneity that 
weilds a people into a National Being does not only imply the total 
absence of all internal differences, Religious, Racial or Linguistic of 
sects and sections amongst themselves. It only means that they 
differ more from other people as a National unit than they differ 


amongst themselves. Even the most Unitarian Nations of today say 
the British or the French cannot be free from any religious/ linguistic, 
cultural, racial or other differences, sects or sections or even some 
antipathies existing amongst themselves. National homogeneity 
connotes oneness of a people in relation to the contrast they present 
to any other people as a whole. 

We Hindus, inspite of thousand and one differences within our fold 
are bound by such religious, cultural, historical, racial, linguistic and 
other affinities in common as to stand out as a definitely homogeneous, 
people as soon as we are placed in contrast with any other non-Hindu 
people say the English or Japanese or even the Indian Moslems. 
That is the reason why toda} r we the Hindus from Kashmere to 
Madras and Sindh to Assam will to be a Nation by ourselves" ......... 

The second proposition on which Mr. Savarkar has built up his 
scheme relates to the definition of the term Hindu. According to 
Mr. Savarkar a Hindu is a person : 

" . . . who regards and owns this Bharat Bhumi, this land from the 
Indus to the Seas, as his Father Land as well as his Holy Land; 
i.e., the land of the origin of his religion, the cradle of his Faith. 

The followers therefore of Vaidicism, Saiiatanism, Jainism. 
Buddhism, Lingaitism, Shikhism, the Arya Samaj, the Brahmosamaj, 
the Devasamaj, the Prarthana Samaj and such other religions of Indian 
origin are Hindus and constitute Hindudonij i.e., Hindu people 
as a whole, 

Consequently the so-called aboriginal or hill-tribes also are Hindus : 
because India is their Father Land as well as their Holy Land of 
whatever form of Religion or worship they follow. 

This definition therefore, should be recongnized by the Government 
and made the test of Hindutva in enumerating the population of 
Hindus in the Government census to come. The definition rendered 
in Sanskrit stands thus : 

This definition of the term Hindu has been framed with great 
care and caution. It is designed to serve two purposes which 
Mr. Savaikar has in view, Firstly, to exclude from it Muslims, 
I?3rsis and Jews by producing the recognition of India 


as a holy land in the qualifications required for being a Hindu. 
Secondly to include Bhuddists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. by not insisting 
upon belief in the sanctity of the Vedas as an element in the 

Such is the alternative of Mr. Savarkar and the Hindu Maha 
Sabha. As must have been noticed, the scheme has some most 
important features. 

One is, the categorical assertion that the Hindus are a nation by 
themselves. This of course means that the Muslims are a separate 
nation by themselves. That this is his view Mr. Savarkar does not 
leave it to be inferred. He insists upon it in no uncertain terms and 
with the most absolute emphasis he is capable of. Speaking at the 
Hindu Maha Sabha Session held at Ahmedabad in 1937, Mr. Savarkar 

" Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in 
supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious 
nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do 
so. These our well-meaning but unthinking friends take 
their dreams for realistics. That is why they are impatient of 
communal tangles and attribute them to communal organiza- 
tions. But the solid fact is that the so-called communal 
questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of 
a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus 
and the Muslims. "When time is ripe you can solve them ; 
but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition 
of them. It is safer to diagnose and treat deep-seated disease 
than to ignore it. Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they 
are. India cannot be assumed today to be an Unitarian and 
homogeneous nation, but on the contrary these are two nations 
in the main, the Hindus and Muslims in India." 

Strange as it may appear Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead 
of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations 
issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only 
agree but insist that there are two nations in India one the 
Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only 
as the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live* 


Mr. Jinnah says that India should be cut up into two, Pakistan 
and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the 
Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other 
hand insists that, although there are two nations in India, India 
shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the 
other for the Hindus ; that the two nations shall dwell in one 
country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution ; 
that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be 
enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the 
Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation 
with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political power between 
the two nations the rule of the game, which Mr. Savarkar prescribes, 
is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his 
scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not 
have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is 
to be no ground for penalty. The state will guarantee Muslim Religion 
and Muslim Culture. But the state will not guarantee the Muslims 
any defined measure of political power in the form of secured seats in 
the Legislature or in the Administration and if such guarantee is 
insisted upon by the Muslims* such guaranteed quota is not to exceed 
there proportion to the general population. Thus, Mr. Savarkar would 
even strip the Muslim nation of all the political privileges it has 
secured so far by confiscating their weightages. 

This alternative of Mr. Savarkar to Pakistan has, about it, 
a frankness, boldness and definiteness which distinguishes it from the 
irritating vagueness and indefiniteness which characterizes the Congress 
declarations about minority rights. Mr. Savarkar's scheme has at 
least the merit of telling the Muslims, thus far, and no further. The 
Muslims know where they are with regard to the Hindu Maha Sabha. 
On the other hand, with the Congress the Musalmans find themselves 
nowhere because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the 
minority question as a game in diplomacy if not in duplicity. 

At the same time it must be said that Mr. Savarkar's attitude 
i$ illogical if not queer. Mr. Savarkar admits that the Muslims are 
a separate nation. He concedes that they have a right to cultural 

* lib shcmld be noted that Mr. Savarkar is not opposed to separate electorates for the 
MusHtt*** It is not clear whether he is in favour of separate electorates for Muslim* ev<m 
^rittf* &**& are in a majority, 


autonomy. He allows them to have a national flag. Yet the 
opposes the demand of the Muslim nation for a separate national 
home. If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation how can 
he refuses the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home ? 

If would not have been a matter of much concern if inconsis- 
tency was the only fault of Mr. Savarkar. But Mr. Savarkar 
in advocating his scheme is really creating a most dangerous 
situation for safety and security of India. History records two ways 
as being open to a major nation to deal with a minor nation when 
they are citizens of the same country and are subject to the same 
constitution. One way is to destroy the nationality of the minor 
nation and to assimilate it and absorb it into the major nation, so 
as to make one nation out of two. This is done by denying to the 
minor nation any right to language, religion or culture and by 
seeking to enforce upon it the language, religion and culture of the 
major nation. The other way is to divide the country and to allow 
the minor nation a separate, autonomous and sovereign existence, 
independent of the major nation. Both these ways were tried in 
Austria and Turkey, the second after the failure of the first. 

Mr. Savarkar adopts neither of these two ways. He does not 
propose to suppress the Muslim nation. On the contrary he is 
nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, 
language and culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of 
a nation. At the same time he does not consent to divide the 
country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, 
autonomous states each sovereign in its own territory. He wants 
th- Hindus and Muslims to live as two separate nations in one 
country, each maintaining its* own religion, language and culture. 
One can understand and even appreciate the wisdom of the theory 
ot suppression of the minor nation by the major nation decause the 
ultimate aim is to bring about one nation. But one can not follow 
the advantage of the theory which says that there must ever be two 
nations but that there shall be no divorce between them. One can 
justify tnis attitude only if the two nations were to live in friendly 
intercourse as equal partners with mutual respect and accord. But 
that is not to be, because Mr. Savarkar will not allow the Muslim 
nation to be coequal in authority with the Hindu nation. He 


wants the Hindu nation to be the dominant nation and the Muslim 
nation to be the servient nation. Why should Mr. Savarkar, after 
sowing this seed of enmity between the Hindu nation and the Muslim 
nation, want that they should live under one constitution and 
occupy one country, it is difficult to explain. 

One cannot give Mr. Savarkar the credit for having found a new 
way. What is difficult to understand is that he should believe that 
his way is the right way. Mr. Savarkar has taken old Austria and 
old Turkey as his model and pattern for his scheme- of Swaraj. He 
sees that in Austria and Turkey there lived one major nation juxta 
posed to other minor nations bound by one constitution with the 
major nation dominating the minor nations and argues that if this 
was possible in Austria and Turkey, why should it not be possible 
for Hindus to do the same in India. 

That Mr. Savarkar should have taken old Austria and old 
Turkey as his models to build upon is really very strange. 
Mr. Savarkar does not seem to be aware of the fact that old Austria 
and old Turkey are no more. Much less does he seem to know the 
forces which have blown up old Austria and old Turkey to bits. If 
Mi. Savarkar instead of studying the past of which he is very 
fond and very proud were to devote more attention to the present 
he would have learnt that old Austria and old Turkey came to 
ruination for insisting upon maintaining the very scheme of things 
which Mr. Savarkar has been advising his " Hindudom " to adopt 
namely, to establish a Swaraj in which there will be two nations 
under the mantle of one single constitution in which the major 
nation will be allowed to hold the minor nation in subordination 
to itself. 

The history of the disruption of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and 
Turkey is of the utmost importance to India and the members of the 
Hindu Maha Sabha will do well to peruse the same. I need say 
nothing here about it because I have collected the lessons to be drawn 
from their fateful history in another chapter. Suffice ir to say 
that the scheme of Swaraj formulated by Mr. Savarkar will give the 
Hindus an empire over the Muslims and thereby satisfiy their 
vanity and their pride in being an imperial race. But it can never 


ensure a stable and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the 
simple reason that the Muslims will never yield willing obedience to 
so dreadful an alternative. 


Mr. Savarkar is quite unconcerned about the Muslim reaction* 
to his scheme. He formulates his scheme and throws it in the face 
of the Muslims with the covering letter l take it or leave it '. He is 
not perturbed by the Muslim refusal to join in the struggle for 
Swaraj. He is quite conscious of the strength of the Hindus and 
the Hindu Maha Sabha and proposes to carry on the struggle in the 
confident hope that alone and unaided the Hindus will be able to 
wrest Swaraj. Mr. Savarkar is quite prepared to say to the 
Musalmans- - 

" If you come, with you, if you don't, without you ; and if you 

oppose, inspite of you the Hindus will continue to fight for their 

national freedom as best as they can/' 

Not so Mr. Gandhi. At the very commencement of his career 
as a political leader of India when Mr. Gandhi startled the people of 
India by his promise to win Swaraj within six months Mr. Gandhi 
said that he can "perform the miiacle only if certain conditions 
were fulfilled. One of these conditions was the achievement of 
Hindu- Moslem unity. Mr. Gandhi is never tired of saying that 
t here is no Swaraj without Hindu- Moslem unity. Mr. Gandhi 
did not merely make this slogan the currency of Indian politics 
but he has strenuously worked to bring it about. Mr. Gandhi, 
it may be said, began his career as a political leader of India 
with the manifesto dated 2nd March 1919 declaring his intention 
to launch Satyagraha against the Rowlett Act and asking those 
who desired to join him to sign the Satyagraha pledge. That 
campaign of Satyagraha was a short-lived campaign and was 
suspended by Mr. Gandhi on i8th April 1919. Asa part of his 
programme Mr. Gandhi had fixed* the 6th March 1919 to be 

* See his Manifesto dated 23rd March 1019. 

';.'"'. ' : . WHAT, IF Not 

'' 4 

pl^erved all over India as a day of protest against the Rowlett Act* 
Mass meetings were to be held on that day and Mr. Gandhi had 
prescribed that the masses attending the meetings should take a vow 
in the following terms : 

" With God as witness, we Hindus and Mahomedans declare that 
we shall behave towards one another as children of the same parents, 
that we shall have no differences, that the sorrows of each shall be 
the sorrows of the other and that each shall help the other in remov- 
ing them. We shall respect each other's religion and religious feelings 
and shall not stand in the way of our respective religious practices. 
We shall always refrain from violence to each other in the name of 

There was nothing in the campaign of Satyagraha against the 
Rowlett Act which could have led to any clash between Hindus and 
Muslims. Yet Mr. Gandhi asked his followers to take the vow. 
This shows how intent he was from the very beginning upon Hindu- 
Muslim unity. 

The Mahomedans started the Khilafat movement in 1919. 
The objective of the movement was twofold ; to preserve the 
Khilafat and to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. 
Both these objectives were insupportable. The Khilafat could not 
be saved simply because the Turks in whose interest this agitation 
was carried on did not want the Sultan. They wanted a Republic 
and it was quite unjustifiable to compel the Turks to keep Turkey 
a Monarchy when they wanted to convert it into a republic. It 
was not open to insist upon the integrity of the Turkish Empire 
because it meant the perpetual subjection of the different nationa- 
lities to the Turkish rule and particularly of the Arabs, especially 
when it was agreed upon all hands that the doctrine ol 
self-determination should be made the basis of the peace settlement. 

The movement was started by the Mahomedans. But it was 
taken up by Mr. Gandhi with a tenacity and faith which must have 
surprised many Mahomedans themselves. There were many people 
who doubted the ethical basis of the Khilafat movement and tried 
to disuade Mr. Gandhi from taking any part in a movement the 
ethical basis of which was so questionable. But Mr. Gandhi had 
so completely persuaded himself of the justice of the Khilafat 


agitation that he refused to yield to their advice. Time and again 
he argued that the cause was just and it was his duty to join. The 
position taken up by him may be summed up in his own words.* 

"(i) In my opinion, the Turkish claim is not only not 
immoral and unjust, but it is highly equitable, if only because 
Turkey wants to retain what is her own. And the Mahomedan 
manifesto has definitely declared that whatever guarantees may 
be necessary to be taken for the protection of the non-Muslim 
and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the Christians 
theirs and the Aiabs their self-government under the Turkish 
suzerainty ; 

(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. 
He is certainly disorganiseJ and probably without good general- 
ship. The argument of weakness, incapacity and cruelty one often 
hears quoted in connection with those from whom power is sought 
to be taken awa}^. About the alleged massacres a proper commis- 
sion h:is been asked for, but never granted. And in any case 
security can be taken against oppression ; 

(3) I have already stated that, if I were not interested in the 
Indian Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare 
of the Turks any more than I am in that of the Austrians or the 
Poles. But I am bound as an Indian to share the sufferings and 
trials of fellow-Indians. If I deem the Mahomedan to be my 
brother, it is my duty to help him in his hour of peril to the best 
of my ability, if his cause commends itself to me as just ; 

(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands 
withHhe Mahomedans. It is therefore a matter of feeling and 
opinion. It is expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to 
the utmost in a just cause and I should therefore travel with him 
along the whole road so long as the means employed by him are 
as honourable as his end. I cannot regulate the Mahomedan feel- 
ing. I must accept his statement that the Khilafat is with him 
a religious question in the sense that it binds him to reach the goal 
even at the cost of his own life." 

Mr. Gadhi not only agreed with the Muslims in the Khilafat 
cause but acted as their guide and their friend. The part played by 
Mr. Gandhi in the Khilafat agitation and the connection between 
the Khilafat agitation and the non-co-operation movement has 

1 * Young India 2nd Juoe 1920, 


become obscured by the reason of the fact that most people believed 
that it was the Congress who initiated the n on- cooperation and that 
was initiated for the sake of winning Swaraj. That such a view 
should prevail is quite understandable because most people content 
themselves with noting the connection between the non-cooperation 
movement and the special session of the Congress held at Calcutta on 
7th and 8th September 1920. But any one who cares to go behind 
September 1920 and examine the situation as it then stood will find 
that this view is not true. The truth is that the Non-cooperation 
has its origin in the Khilafat agitation and not in the Congress 
movement for Swaraj : that it was started by the Khilafatists to help 
Turkey and only adopted by the Congress: that Swaraj was not 
its primary object, but its primary object was Khilafat and that 
Swaraj was added as a secondary object, to induce the Hindus to 
join in it. 

The Khilafat movement may be said to have begun on the 
27th October 1919 when the day was observed as the Khilafat Day 
all over India. On the 23rd November 1919 the First Khilafat 
Conference met at Delhi. It was at this session that the Muslims 
considered the feasibility of Non-cooperation as a means of 
compelling the British Government to redress the Khilafat wrong. 
On the loth March 1920 Khilafat Conference met at Calcutta and 
decided upon Non-cooperation as the best weapon to further the 
object of their agitation. 

On the gth June 1920 the Khilafat Conference met at 
Allahabad and unanimously reaffirmed their resolve to resort to 
Non -cooperation and appointed an Executive Committee to enforce 
and lay down a detailed programme. On 22nd June 1920 the 
Muslims sent a message to the Viceroy stating that they will start 
Non-cooperation if the Turkish grievances were not redressed before 
ist August 1920. On the 3Oth June 1920 the Khilafat Committee 
meeting held at Allahabad resolved to start Non-cooperation, after 
a month's notice to the Viceroy. Notice was given on the ist 
August 1920 and the Non- cooperation commenced on 3 ist August 
1920. This short resume shows that the Non-cooperation was 
^started by the Khilafat Committee and all that the Congress special 
session at Calcutta did was to adopt what the Khilafat Conference 


had already done and that too not in the inteiest of Swaraj but in 
the interest of helping the Musalmans in furthering the cause of 
Khilafat This is clear from the perusal of the Congress Resolution* 
passed at the special session held at Calcutta. 

Although the Non-cooperation movement was launched by the 
Khilafat Committee and merely adopted by the Congress primarily 
to help the Khilafat cause the person who suggested it to the 
Khilafat Committee and who indentified himself with the Committee 
and took the responsibility for giving effect to it and who brought 
about its adoption by the Congress was Mr. Gandhi. 

At the first Khilafat Conference held at Delhi on 23rd 
November 1919 Mr. Gandhi was present. Not only Mr. Gandhi 
was present but it was he who advised the Muslims to adopt Non- 
co-operation as a method of forcing the British to yield to their 
demands regarding the Khilafat. The joining of Mr. Gandhi in 
the Khilafat movement is full of significance. The Muslims were 
anxious to secure the support of the Hindus in the cause of Khilafat. 
At the Conference held on 23rd November 1919 the Muslims had 
invited the Hindus. Again on 3rd June 1920 a joint meeting of 
the Hindus and the Khilafatist Muslims was held at Allahabad. 

* ** In view of the fact that on the Khilafat question both the Indian and Imperial 
Governments have signally failed in their duty towards the Muslims of India and the 
Prime Minister haa deliberately broken his pledged word given to them, and that it is the 
duty of evry non-Muslim Indian in every legitimate manner to assist his Muslim brother in 
his attempt to remove the religion a calamity that has overtaken him ; 

" And in view of the fact that, in the matter of the events of the April of 1919, t>otn the 
said Governments have grossly neglected or failed to protect the innocent people of the 
Punjab and punish officers guilty of unsoldierly and barbarous behaviour towards them, and 
have exonerated Sir Michael O'Dwyer who proved himself directly responsible for most of 
the official crimes and callous to the sufferings of the people placed under his administration, 
and that the debate in the House of Lords betrayed a woeful lack of sympathy with the 
people of India, and systematic terrorism and fright fulness adopted in the Punjab, and that 
the latest Viceregal pronouncement is proof of entire absence of repentance in the matters of 
the Khilafat and the Punjab. 

*' This Congress is of opinion that there can bo no contentment in India without redress 
of the two aforementioned wrongs, and that the only effectual means to vindicate national 
honour and to prevent a repetition of similar wrongs in future is the establishment of 

" This Congress is further of opinion that there is no course left open for the people of 
India but to approve of and adopt the policy .of progressive non -violent Non-co-operation 
inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, until the said wrongs are righted and Swarajya is 

Mrs. Annie Besant saye : " It will be remembered that Mr. Gandiri, in March 1920, had 
forbidden the mixing up of Non-co-operation in defence of the Khilafat wijh other questions; 
but jit was found that the Khilafat was not sufficiently attractive to I&ndtts", so at the 
meeting of the All-India Congresss Committee held at Benares on May 30 and $1, the Ptmia 
Atrocities and the deficiencies of the Reforms Act were added to the provocative causes 
The Future of India* Polios, page 250 f 



This meeting was attended among others by Sapru, Motilal Nehru 
and Annie Besant. But the Hindus were hesitant in joining the 
Muslims. Mr. Gandhi was the only Hindu who joined the Muslims. 
Not only did he show courage to join them, but also he kept step with 
them, nay-led them. On gih June 1920 when the Khilafat Conference 
met at Allahabad and formed an Executive Committee to prepare 
a detailed programme of Non-co-operation and give effect to it, 
Mr. Gandhi was the only Hindu on that Executive Committee. 
On the 22nd June 1920 the Muslims sent a massage to the Viceroy 
that they will start Non-Co-operation if the Turkish grievances were 
not redressed before ist August 1920. On the same day Mr. Gandhi 
also sent a letter to the Viceroy explaining the justice of the 
Khilafat cause, the reasons why he has taken up the cause and the 
necessity of satisfying the Muslims. Later he went headlong and 
took the lead out of the hands of the Khilafatists. For instance the 
notice given to the Viceroy on the ist August 1920 that Non-co- 
operation will be started on the 3 ist August was given by Mr. 
Gandhi and not by the Khilafatists. Again when Non-co-operation 
was started by the Khilafatists on the 3 ist August 1920 Mr. Gandhi 
was the first to give a concrete shape to it by returning his medal. 
After inaugurating the Non-co-operation movement as an active 
member of the Khilafat Committee Mr. Gandhi next directed his 
energy to the cause of persuading the Congress to adopt Non-co- 
operation and strengthen the Khilafat movement. With that object 
in view Mr. Gandhi travelled the country between the 3 ist August 
and ist September 1920 in the company of the Ali Brothers who 
were the founders of the Khilafat movement impressing upon the 
people the necessity of Non-co-operation. People could notice 
the disharmony in the tune in this propaganda tour. As the 
Modern Review pointed out " Reading between the lines of their 
speeches, it is not difficult to see that with one of them the sad 
plight of the Khilafat in distant Turkey is the central fact, while 
with the other the attainment of Swaraj here in India is the object 
in view." This dichotomy * of interest did not augur well for the 

* Mr. Gandhi repudiated the suggestion of the Modern Review and regarded it as 
"orueleat out". Dealing with the criticism of the Modern Review in his Article in Young 
tadia .for 20th October 1921 Mr, Gandhi said "I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the 
central fact, with Maulana Mahomed Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in 
laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure safety of the cow, that is my religion, from 
toe Mvusalman knife/' 


success of the ultimate purpose. None the less Mr. Gandhi succeeded 
in carrying the Congress with him in support of the Khilafat 

The effect of its taking up the Khilafat cause upon the dimen- 
sions of the Congress was tremendous. The Congress was really 
made great and powerful not by the Hindus but by the Muslims. 
After this Resolution the Muslims who were outside it trooped in 
the Congress and the Congress Hindus in turn welcomed them. 
Swami Shradhaiiand has recordedt his impressions of the Congress 
Session which he attended after the Muslims came into it in the 
following terms : 

" On sitting on the dias (Lucknow Congress platform) the first thing 
that I noticed, was that the number of Moslem delegates was propor- 
tionately fourfold of what it was at Lahore in 1893. The majority of 
Moslem delegates had donned gold, silver and silk emroidered 
chogas (flowing robes) over their ordinary course suits of wearing 
apparel. It was rumoured that these 'ehogas' had been put by 
Hindu moneyed men for Congress Tamasha. Of some 433 Moslem 
delegates only some 30 had come from outside, the rest belonging 
to Lucknow City. And of these the majority was admitted free to 
delegates seats, board and lodging. Sir Syed Ahmad's Anti-Congress 
League had tried in a public meeting to disuade Moslems from 
joining the Congress as delegates. As a countermove the Congress 
people lighted the whole Congress camp some four nights before the 
session began and advertised that that night would be free. The result 
was that all the "Chandul Khanas" of Lucknow were emptied and 
a huge audience of some thirty thousand Hindus and Moslems was 
addressed from half a dozen platforms. It was then that the Moslem 
delegates were elected or selected. All this was admitted by the 
Lucknow Congress organisers to me in private. 

" A show was being made of the Moslem delegates. A Moslem 
delegate gets up to second a resolution in Urdu. He begins : Hozarat, 
I am a Mahomedan delegate." Some Hindu delegate gets up and 
calls for three cheers for Mahomedan delegates and the response is 
so enthusiastic as to be beyond description." 

* The Resolution of Non-co-operation was carried by 1886 votes against 884. The late 
Mr. Tairsee once told me that a large majority of the delegates were no others than the 
taxi drivers of Calcutta who were paid to vote for the Non-co-operation resolution. 

f Liberator, 22nd April 1926. 

[part fli 

For this hilarious if ephemeral unity credit must of course go 
to. Mr. Gandhi. 

When the Musalmans in 1919 approached the Hindus fo r 
participation in the Non-co-operation movement which the Muslims 
desired to start for helping Turkey and the Khilafat the Hindus were 
found to be divided in three camps. One was a camp of those who 
were opposed to non-co-peration in principle. A second camp 
consisted of those Hindus who were prepared to join the Muslims in 
their campaign of non-co-operation provided the Musalmans agreed to 
give up Cow Slaughter. A third group consisted of Hindus who 
feared that the non-co-operation of the Mahomedans might be 
extended by them to inviting the Afghans to invade India in which 
case the movement instead of resulting in Swaraj might result in the 
subjection of India to Muslim Raj. 

Mr. Gandhi did not care for those Hindus who were opposed 
to joining the Muslims in the Non-co-operation movement. But 
with regard to the others he told them that their attitude was 
unfortunate. To those Hindus who wanted to give their support 
on the condition that the Muslims give up cow killing Mr. Gandhi 
said : * 

" I submit that the Hindus may not open the Goraksha question 
here. The test of friendship is assistance in adversity, and that too, 
unconditional assistance. Co-operation that needs consideration is 
a commercial contract and not friendship. Conditional co-operation 
is like adulterated cement which does not bind. It is the duty of the 
Hindus, if they see the justice of the Mahomedan cause, to render 
co-operation. If the Mahomedans feel themselves bound in honour to 
spare the Hindus' feelings and to stop cow-killing, they may do so, no 
matter whether the Hindus co-cperate with them or not. Though 
therefore, I yield to no Hindu in my worship of the cow, I do not 
want to make the stopping of cow-killing a condition precedent to 
co-operation. Unconditional co-operation means the protection 
of the cow. " 

To those Hindus who feared to join the non-co-operation 
movement for the reasons that Muslims may invite the Afghans to 
invade India Mr. Gandhi said : t 

' ' It is easy enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. 
It is difficult to resist the Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the 

* Young India, 10th December 1919. 
f Young Xadia, 9th June 1920. 


best way to prevent India from becoming the battle ground between 
the forces of Islrm and those of the English is for Hindus t6 make 
Non-co-operation a complete and immediate success, and I have 
little doubt that, if the Mahomedans remain true to their declared 
intention and are able to exercise self-restraint and make sacrifices, 
the Hindus will " play the game" and join them in the campaign of 
Non-co-operation. I feel equally certain that Hindus will not assist 
Mahomedans in promoting or bringing about an armed conflict 
between the British Government and their allies, and Afghanistan. 
British forces are too well organised to admit of any successful 
invasion of the Indian frontier. The only way, therefore, the 
Mahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the 
honour of Islam is to take up Non-co-operation in real earnest. It 
will not only be completely effective if it is adopted by the people 
on an extensive scale, but it will also provide full scope for individual 
conscience. If I cannot bear an injustice done by an individual or 
a corporation and I am directy or indirecty instrumental in upholding 
that individual or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker ; 
but I have done all that is humanly possible for me to do consistently 
with the moral code that refuses to injure even the wrong-doers, if 
I cease to support the injustice in the manner described above. In 
applying therefore such a great force, there should be 110 haste, there 
should be no temper shown. Non-co-operation must be and remain 
absolutely a voluntary effort. The whole thing, then, depends upon 
Mahomedans themselves. If they will but help themselves, Hindu 
help will come and the Government, great and mightly though it is, 
will have to bend before this irresistible force. No Government can 
possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole nation/' 

Unfortunately the hope of Mr. Gandhi that ' no Government 
can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole nation ' 
did not come true. Within a year of the starting of the Non-co- 
operation movement Mr. Gandhi had to admit* that the Musalmans 
had grown impatient and that 

" In their impatient anger, the Musalmans ask for more energetic 
and more prompt action by the Congress and Khilafat organisations. 
To the Musalmans, Swaraj means, as it must mean, India's ability 
to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. The Musalmans 
therefore decline to wait if the attainment of Swaraj means indefinite 
delay or a programme that may require the Musalmans of India to 
become impotent witnesses of the extinction of Turkey in European 

WHA'T, IF &OT PAKISTAN [part nt 

It is impossible not to sympathise with this attitude. I would 
gladly recommend immediate action if I could think of any effective 
course. I would gladly ask for postponement of Swaraj activity if 
thereby we could advance the interest of the Khilafat. I could 
gladly take up measures outside Non-co-operation, if I could think of 
any in order to assuage the pain caused to the millions of the 

But, in my humble opinion, attainment of Swaraj is the quickest 
method of righting the Khilafat wrong. Hence it is that for me that 
the solution of the Khilafat question is attainment of Swaraj and Vice 
Versa. The only way to help the afflicted Turks is for India to 
generate sufficient power to be able to assert herself. If she cannot 
develop that power in time, there is no way out for India and she 
must resign herself to the inevitable. What can a paralytic do to 
stretch forth a helping hand to a neighbour but to try to cure himself 
of his paralysis ? Mere ignorant, thoughtless and angry outburst of 
violence may give vent to pent-up rage but can bring no relief to 
Turkey 1 '. 

The Musalmans were not in a mood to listen to the advice of 
Mr. Gandhi. They refused to worship the principle of non-violence. 
They were not prepared to wait for Swaraj. They were in a hurry 
to find the most expeditious means of helping Turkey and saving 
the Khilafat. And the Muslims in their impatience did exactly 
what the Hindus feared they would do, namely-invite the Afghans to 
invade India. How far the Khilafatists had proceeded in their 
negotiations with the Amir of Afghanistan it is not possible to know. 
But that such a project was entertained by them is beyond question. 
It needs no saying that the project of an invasion of India was the 
most dangerous project and every sane Indian w r ould dissociate 
himself from so mad a project. What part Mr. Gandhi played in 
this project it is not possible to discover. But he did not certainly 
dissociate himself from it. On the contrary his misguided zeal for 
Swaraj and his obsession on Hindu-Moslem nnity as the only 
means of achieving it led him to support the project. Not only did 
he advise* the Amir not to enter into any treaty with the British 
Government but declared 

" I would, in a sense, certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan if 
he waged war against the British Government. That is to say, 

* Young India dated 4th May 1921. 


I would openly tell my countrymen that it would be a crime to help 
a government which had lost the confidence of the nation to remain 
in power ". 

Can any sane man go so far for the sake of Hindu -Moslem 
unity ? But Mr. Gandhi was so attached to Hindu-Moslem unity 
that he did not stop to enquire what he was really doing in this 
mad endeavour. So anxious was Mr. Gandhi in laying the foun- 
dations of Hindu-Moslem unity well and truly that he did not 
forget to advise his followers regarding the National Cries. In an 
Article in Young India of 8th September 1920 Mr. Gandhi said : 

"During the Madras tour, at Bezwada I had occasion to remark 
upon the national cries and I suggested that it would be better to have 
cries about ideals than men. I asked the audience to replace Mahtma 
Gandhi-ki-Jai and Mahome 1 Ali-Shoukat Ali-ki-Jai by Hindu- 
Musalman-ki-Jai. Brother Shaukat Ali, who followed, positively 
laid down the law. In spite of the Hindu-Muslim unity, he had 
observed that, if Hindus shouted Baiide Mataram, the Muslims rang 
out with Allaho Akbar and vice versa. This, he rightly said jarred 
on the ear and still showed that the people did not act with one 
mind. Theie should be therefore only three cries recognised. 
Allaho Akbar to be joyously sung out by Hindus and Muslims 
showing that God alone was great and no other. The second should 
be Bande Mataram (Hail Motherland) or Bharat Mata-ki-Jai 
(Victory to Mother Hind). The third should be Hindu-Musalman-ki-Jai 
without which there was no victory for India, and no true demon- 
stration of the greatness of God. I do wish that the newspapers and 
public men would take up the Maulana's suggestion and lead the 
people only to use the three cries. They are full of meaning. The 
first is a prayer and confession of our littleness and therefore a sign 
of humility. It is a cry in which all Hindus and Muslims should 
join in reverence and prayerfulness. Hindus may not fight shy of 
Arabic words, when their meaning is not only totally inoffensive 
but even ennobling. God is no respector of any particular tongue. 
Bande Mataram, apart from its wonderful associations, expresses the 
one national wish the rise of India to her full height. And I should 
prefer Bande Mataram to Bharat Mata-ki-Jai, as it would be a graceful 
recognition of the intellectual and emotional superiority of Bengal. 
Sincel ndia can be nothing without the union of the Hindu and the 
Muslim heart, Hindu-Musalman-ki-Jai is a cry which we may 
never forget. 


There should be no discordance in these cries. Immediately some 
one has taken up any of the three cries, the rest should take it up and 
not attempt to yell out their favourite. Those who do not wish to 
join may refrain, but they should consider it a breach of etiquette to 
interpolate their own when a cry has already been raised. It would 
be better too, always to follow out the three cries in the order given 

These are not the only things Mr. Gandhi has done to build up 
Hindu-Moslem unity. He has never called the Muslims to account 
even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. 

It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had 
offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their 
writings or by their part in the Shudhi movement have been 
murdered by some fanatic Musalman. First to suffer was Swami 
Shradhaiiand, who was shot by Abdul Rashid on the 23rd December 
1926 when he was lying in his sick bed. This was followed by the 
murder of JLala Nanakchand, a prominent Arya Samajist of Delhi. 
Rajpal the author of the Rangila Rasool was stabbed by Ilamdin 
on the 6th April 1929 while he was sitting in his shop. Nathuramal 
Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in September 1934 who 
stabbed him to death in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of 
Sind where he was seated in Court awaiting the hearing of his appeal 
against his conviction under Section 195, I. P. C. for the publication 
of a pamphlet on the history of Islam. 

Kar>na, the Secretary of the Hindu Sabha was severely 
assaulted in 1938 by the Mahomedans after the Session of the Hindu 
Maha Sabha held in Ahmedabad and very narrowly escaped death. 

This is of course a very short list and is capable of being 
expanded. But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by 
fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is 
the attitude of those who count towards these murderers. The 
murderers of course paid the penalty of law where law is enforced. 
But the leading Moslems never condemned these criminals. On the 
contrary they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was 
carried on for showing clemency to them. As an illustration of this 
attitude one may refer to Mr. Barkat Alii, a barrister of Lahore, who 
argued the appeaiof Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that 


Qayum was not guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was 
justifiable by the law of the Koran. This attitude of the Moslems is 
quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of 
Mr. Gandhi. 

Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condem- 
ning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress much 
against its will to condemn it. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested 
against such murders : nor the Muslims have ever been in the habit 
of condemning.* Has he ever called upon the leading Muslims to 
condemn them ? He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude 
can be explained only on the ground that Mr. Gandhi was anxious 
to preserve Hindu- Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of 
a few Hindus if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives. 

This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong lest it should 
injure the cause of unity is well illustrated by what Mr. Gandhi had 
to say in the matter of the Mopla riots. 

The blood-curling atrocities committed by the Moplas in 
Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern 
India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of 
every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat 
leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of " Congratulations 
to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the 
sake of religion ". Any person could have said that this was too 
heavy a price for Hind-Moslem unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so 
much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity 
that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas 
and the Khilafatists who were congratulating them. He spoke 
of the Mopalas as the " brave God-fearing Moplas who were 
fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which 
they consider as religious >f . Speaking of the 'Muslim silence over 
the Mopla atrocities Mr. Gandhi told the Hindus : 

" The Hindus must have the courage and the faith to feel that they 
can protect their religions in spite of such fanatical eruptions. A 

* It is reported that for earning merit for the soul of Abdur Rashid, the murderer of 
Swami Shradhanand, in the next world the students and professors of the famous 
theological college at Deoband finished five complete recitations of the Koran and had 
planned td finish IX V. a lakh And a quarter recitation* of Koranic verses.. Their prayer was 
"Ctod Almighty A may give the marhoom <i.e, Eashid) a place in the *a' ala*e-illeeyetir 
(tbe fftJMtnit of tfcd s*^0titb Mfcveo) Times of India, 30-11*27 Through India* JBfye* columns, 


verbal disapproval by the Mussalmans of Mopla madness Is no 
test of Mussalman friendship. The Mussalmans must naturally feel 
the shame and humiliation of the Moplah conduct about forcible 
conversions and looting, and they must work away so silently and 
effectively that such thing might become impossible even on the part 
of the most fanatical among them. My belief is that the Hindus as 
a body have received the Mopla madness with equanimity and that 
the cultured Mussalamans are sincerely sorry of the Mopla's 
perversion of the teaching of the Prophet ". 

The Resolution* passed by the Working Committee of the 
Congress on the Mopla atrocities shows how careful the Congress 
was not to hurt the feelings of the Musalmans. 

"The Working Committee places on record its sense of deep 
regret over the deeds of violence done by Moplas in certain areas of 
Malabar, these deeds being evidence of the fact that there are still 
people in India who have not understood the message of the Congress 
and the Central Khilafat Committee, und calls upon every Congress 
and Khilafat worker to spread the said message of non-violence even 
under the gravest provocation throughout the length and breadth of 

""yVhilst, however, condemning violence on the part of the Moplas, 
the Working Committee desires it to be known that the evidence in 
its possession shows that provocation beyond endurance was given to 
the Moplas and that the reports published by and on behalf of the 
Government have given a one-sided and highly exaggerated account 
of the wrongs done by the Moplas and an understatement of the 
needless destruction of life resorted to by the Government in the 
name of peace and order. 

"Ihe Working Committee regrets to find that there have been 
instances of so-called forcible conversion by some fanatics among the 
Moplas, but warns the public against believing in the Government and 
inspired versions. The Report before the Committee says : 

" The families .which have been reported to have been forcibly 
converted into Mahomedansim lived in the neighbourhood of 
Manjeri. It is clear that conversions were forced upon Hindus by 
a fanatic gang which was always opposed to the Khilafat and 
Non-co-operetion movement and there were only three cases so far 
as our information goes." 

* The resolution says that there were only three oases of forcible conversion ! 1 In reply 
to a question in the Central Legislature (Debates 16th January 1922) Sir William Vincent 
replies ** The Madras Government report that the number of forcible conversions probably 
runs to thousands but that for obvious reasons it will never be possible to obtain anything 
like an accurate estimate ", 



The following instances of the silence of Mr. Gandhi over die 
cases of Muslim intransigence are recorded by Swami 
Shradhanand in his weekly journal called the * Liberator '. 
Writing in the issue of 3Oth September IQ26 about Muslims and 
Untouchability, the Swamiji said : 

" As regards the removal of untoucliability it has been authorita- 
tively ruled several times that it is the duty of Hindus to expatiate 
for their past sins and non-Hindus should have nothing to do with it. 
But the Mahomedan and the Christian Congressmen have openly 
revolted against the dictum :of Gandhi at Vaikom and other places. 
Even such an unbiased leader as Mr. Yakub Hassan, presiding over 
a meeting called to present address to me at Madras, openly enjoined 
upon Musalmans the duty of converting all the untouchables in India 
to Islam." 

But Mr. Gandhi said nothing by way of i*emostrancc either to 
the Muslims or to the Christians. 

In his issue of July 1926 the Swami writes : 

" There was another prominent (act to which I drew attention of 
Mahatma Gandhi. Both of us went together one night to the 
Khilaphat Conference at Nagpur. The Aj^ats (verses) of the Quoran 
recited by the Maulanas on that occasion, contained frequent 
references to Jihad against, and killing, the Kaffirs. But when I drew 
his attention to this phase of the Khilafat movement, Mahatmaji 
smiled and said, " They are alluding to the British Buraucracy." 
In reply I said that it was all subversive of the idea of nonviolence 
and when the reversion of feeling came the Mahomedan Maulanas 
would not refrain from using these verses against the Hindus." 

The Swami 7 s third instance relates to the Mopla Riots. 
Writing in the Liberator of 26th August 1926 the Swami says : 

" The first warning was sounded when the question of condemning 
the Moplas for their atrocities on Hindus came up in the Subjects 
Committee. The original resolution condemned the Moplas whole- 
sale for the killing of Hindus and burning of Hindu homes and the 
forcible conversion to Islam. The Hindu members themselves 
proposed amendments till it was reduced to condemning only certain 
individuals who had been guilty of the above crimes. But some of 
the Moslem leaders could not bear this even. Maulana Fakir and 
other Maulanas, of course, opposed the resolution and there was no 
wonder. But I was surprised, an out and out Nationalist like 

f J6 WHAT, if Kot fAttistAN tp*rt itt 

Maulana Hasrat Mohani opposed the resolution on the ground that 
the Mopla country no longer remained Dar-ul-Aman but became 
Dar-ul-Harab and as they suspected the Hindus of collusion with 
the British enemies of the Moplas. Therefore, the Moplas were 
right in presenting the Quoran or sword to the Hindus. And if the 
Hindus became Mussalmans to save themselves from death, it was 
a voluntary change of faith and not forcible conversion Well, even 
the harmless resolution condemning some of the Moplas was not 
unanimously passed but had to be accepted by a majoritj r of votes 
only. There were other indications also, showing that the Musalrnans 
considered the Conjress to be existing on their sufferance and if there 
was the least attempt to ignore their idiosyncrasies the superficial 
unity would be scrapped asunder." 

The last one refers to the burning of the foreign cloth started 
by Mr. Gandhi. Writing in the Liberator of I3th August 1926 the 
Swamiji says : 

"While people came to the conclusion, that the burning of foreign 
cloth was a religious duty of Indians and Messrs. Das, Nehru and 
other topmost leaders made bon-fire of cloth worth thousands, the 
Khilafat Musalmans got permission from Ma.hxtm r cii\to send alt foreign 
cloth for the use of the Turkish brethren. This again was a great 
shock to me. While Mahatmaji stood adamant and did not have the 
least regard for Hindu feelings when a question of principle was 
involved, for the Moslem dereliction of duty, there was always a soft 
corner in his heart." 

In the history of his efforts to bring about Hindu-Moslem 
unity mention must be made of two incidents. One is the Fast 
which Mr. Gandhi underwent in the year 1924. It was a fast of 
21 days. Before undertaking the fast Mr. Gandhi explained the 
reasons for it in a statement from which the following extracts are 
taken : 

" The fact that Hindus and Musalmans, who were only two years 
ago apparently working together as friends, are now fighting like cats 
and dogs in some places, shows conclusively that the non-co-operation 
they offered was not non-violent. I saw the symptoms in Bombay, 
Chauri Chaura and in a host of minor cases. I did penance then. 
It had its effects protants* But this Hindu- Muslim tension was 
unthinkable. It became unbearable on hearing of the Kohat tragedy* 
On the eve of my departure from Sabarmati for Delhi, Sarojini Devi 



wrote to me that speeches and homilies on peace would not do, 
I must find out an effective remedy. She was right in saddling the 
responsibility on me. Had, not been instrumental in bringing into 
being the vast energy of the people ? I must find the remedy if the 
energy proved self-destructive. 

I was violently shaken by Amethi, Sambhal and Gulbarga. I had 
read the reports about Amethi and Sambhal prepared by Hindu and 
Musalman friends. I had learnt the joint finding of Hindu and 
Musalman friends who went to Gulbarga. I was writing in deep pain 
and yet I had no remedy. The news of Kolhat set the smoulding 
mass aflame. Something had got to be done. I passed two nights 
in restlessness and pain. On Wednesday I knew the remedy. 
I must do penance. 

" It is a warning to the Hindus and Mussulmans who have profes- 
sed to love me. If they have loved me truly and if I have been 
deserving of their love, they will do penance with me for the grave 
sin of denying God in their hearts. 

" The penance of Hindus and Mussulmans is not fasting but 
retracing their steps. It is true penance for a Mussulmans to 
harbour no ill-will for his Hindu brother and an equally true penance 
for a Hindu to harbour none for his Mussulman brother. 

" I did not consult friends-not even Hakim Saheb who was 
clcseted with me for a long time on Wednesday-not Maulana 
Mahomed Ali under whose roof I am enjoying the privilege of 

" But was it right for me to go through the fa,st under a Mussulman 
roof ? (Gandhi was at the time the guest of Mr. Mahomed Ali at 
Delhi). Yes, it was. The fast is not born out of ill-will against 
a single soul. My being under a Mussalman roof ensures it against 
any such interpretation. It is in the fitness of things that this fast 
should be taken up and completed in a Mussalman house. 

" And who is Mahomed Ali ? Only two days before the fast we 
had a discussion about a private matter in which I told him what 
was mine was his and what was his was mine. Let me gratefully 
tell the public that I have never received warmer or better treatment 
than under Mohomed Ali's roof* Every want of mine is anticipated. 
The dominant thought of every one of his household is to make me 
and mine happy and comfortable. Doctors Ansari and Abdur 
Rehman have constituted themselves my medical advisers. They 


examine me daily. I have had many a happy occasion in my life. 
This is no less happy than the previous ones. Bread is not every- 
thing, lam experiencing here the richest love. It is more than 
bread for me* 

" It has been whispered that by going so much with Mussulman 

friends, I make myself unfit to know the Hindu mind. The Hindu 

mind is myself. Surely I do not live amidst Hindus to know the 

Hindu mind when every fibre of my being is Hindu. My Hinduism 

must be a very poor thing if it cannot flourish under influences the 

most adverse. I know instictively what is necessary for Hinduism 

But I must labour to discover the Mussulman mind. The closer I 

come to the best of Mussulmans, the juster I am likely to be in my 

estimate of the Mussulmans and their doings. I am striving to 

become the best cement between the two communities. My longing 

is to be ablo to cement the two with my blood, if necessary. But, 

before I can do so, I must prove to the the Mtssalmaus that I love 

them as well as I love the Hindus. M}* religion teaches me to love 

all equally. May God help rne to do so ! My fast among other 

things is meant to qualify me for achieving that equal and selfless 

love. " 

The fast produced Unity Conferences. But the Unity 
Conferences produced notbirg except pious resolutions which were 
broken as soon as they were announced. 

The other incident to be noted is the part Mr. Gandhi played 
in the Communal settlement. He offered the Muslims a blank 
cheque. The blank cheque only served to exasperate the Muslims 
as they interpreted it as an act of evasion. He opposed the separate 
electorates at the Round Table Conference. When they were given 
to the Muslims by the Communal Award Mr. Gandhi and the 
Congress did not approve of it. But when it came to voting upon it 
they took the strange attitude of neither approving it nor opposing it. 

Such is the history of Mr. Gandhi's efforts to bring about Hindu- 
Moslem unity. What fruits did these efforts bear ? To be able to 
answer this question it is necessary to examine the relationship between 
the two communities during 1920 40 the years during which 
Mr. Gandhi laboured so hard to bring about Hindu- Moslem Unity. 
The relationship is well described in the Annual Reports on the 
affairs of India submitted year by year to Parliament by th e 


Government of India under the old Government of India Act- It is 
on these reports* that I have drawn for the facts recorded below. 

Beginning with the year 1920 there occurred in that year in 
Malabar what is known as the Mopla Rebellion. It was the result 
of the agitation carried out by two Muslim organizations, the 
Khuddam-i-Kaba (servants of the Mecca Shrine) and the Central 
Khilafat Committee. Agitators actually preached the doctrine that 
India under the British Government was Dar-ul-Haral and that the 
Muslims must fight against it and if they could not they must carry 
out the alternative principle of Hijrat- The Moplas were suddenly 
carried off" their feet by this agitation. The outbreak was essentially 
a rebellion aginst the British Government. The aim was to establish 
the kingdom of Islam by overthrowing the British Government. 
Knives, swords and spears were secretly manufactured, bands of 
desperados collected for an attack on the British authority. On August 
2Oth a severe encounter took place between the Moplas and British 
forces at Pirunangdi. Roads were blocked, telegraph lines cut, and 
the railway destroyed in a number of places. As soon as the 
administration had been paralysed the Moplas declared that Swaraj 
had been established. A certain Ali Musaliar was proclaimed Raja> 
Khilafat flags were flown, and Ernad and Walluranad were declared 
Khilafat Kingdoms. As a rebellion against British Government it 
was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the treatment 
accorded by the Moplas to the Hindus of Malabar. The Hindus 
were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplas. Massacres 
forcible conversions, descration of temples, foul outrages upon women, 
such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction 
in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, 
were perpetrated freely by the Moplas upon the Hindus until such 
time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order through 
a difficult and extensive tract of the country. This was not a Hindu- 
Moslem riot. This was just a Barthalomeio. The number of Hindus 
who were killed, wounded or converted is not known. But the 
number must have been enormous. 

In the year 1921-22 communal jealousies did not subside. The 
Muharram Celebrations had been attended by serious riots both in 

The series is known as "India in 1920" & so on. 

160 WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part 01 

Bengal and in the Punjab* In the latter province in particular! 
communal feeling at Multan reached very serious heights, and althbugh 
the casualty list was comparatively small, a great deal of damage to 
property was done. 

Though the year 1922-23 was a peaceful year the relations 
between the two communities were strained throughout 1923-24. 
But in no locality did this tension produce such tragic consequences 
as in the city of Kohat. The immediate cause of the trouble was 
the publication and circulation of a pamphlet containing a verulently 
Anti-Islamic poem. Terrible riots broke out on the gth and loth 
of September 1924, the total casualties being about 155 killed and 
wounded. House property to the estimated value of Rs. 9 lakhs 
was destroyed, and a large quantity of goods were looted. In the 
event, the whole Hindu population evacuated Kohat City. After 
protracted negotiations, an agreement of reconciliation was concluded 
between the two communities Government giving an assurance 
that, subject to certain reservations, the prosecutions pending against 
persons concerned in rioting should be dropped. With the 
object of enabling the sufferers to restart their businesses and rebuild 
their houses, Government sanctioned advances, to be free of interest 
in certain instances, amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs. But even after 
settlement had been reached and evacuees had returned to Kohat 
there was no peace and throughout 1924-25 the tension between 
the Hindu and Musalman masses in various parts of the country 
increased to a lamentable extent. In the summer months there was 
a distressing number of riots. In July severe fighting broke out 
between Hindus and Musalmans in Delhi, which was accompanied 
by serious casualties. In the same month there was a bad outbreak 
at Nagpur. August was even worse. There were riots at Lahore, 
at Lucknow, at Moradabad, at Bhagalpur and Nagpur in British 
India ; while a severe affray took place at Gulbarga in the Nizam's 
Dominions. September-October saw severe fighting at Lucknow, 
Shahajahanpur, Kankinarah and at Allahabad. The most terrible 
outbreak of the year being the one that took place at Kohat and 
which was accompanied by murder, arson and loot. 

In 1925-26 the antagonism between Hindus atxi Muslims 
became wide spread* Veiy significant features of the Hindu-Muslim 


rioting, which took place during this year were its wide distribution 

and its occurrence, in some cases, in small villages, Calcutta, the 

United Provinces, the Central Provinces and the Bombay 

Presidency were all scenes of riots, some of which led to regrettable 

losses of life. Certain minor and local Hindu festivals, which 

occurred at the end of August, gave rise to communal trouble in 

Calcutta, in Berar, in Gujarat in the Bombay Presidency, and in 

the United Provinces. In some of these places there were actual 

clashes between the two communities, but elsewhere, notably at 

Kankinarah one of the most thickly populated jute mill centres of 

Calcutta serious rioting was prevented by the activity of the police. 

In Gujarat, Hindu-Muslin? feeling was running high in these days 

and was marked by at least one case of temple desecration. The 

important Hindu festival of Ramlila, at the end of September, gave 

rise to acute anxiety in many places, and at Aligarh, an important 

place in the United Provinces, its celebration was marked by one of 

the worst riots of the year. The riot assumed such dangerous 

proportions that the police were compelled to fire to restore order, 

and five persons were killed, cither by the police or by rioters. At 

Lucknow the same festival gave rise at one time to a threatening 

situation, but the local authorities prevented actual rioting. October 

saw another serious riot at Sholapur in the Bombay Presidency. 

There, local Hindus were taking a car with Hindu idols through 

the city, and when they came near the mosque, a dispute arose 

between them and certain Muslims, which developed into a riot. 

A deplorable rioting started in Calcutta in the beginning of 
April in an affray outside a mosque between Muslims and some Arya 
Samajists and continued to spread until April 5th, though there was 
only one occasion on which the police or military were faced by 
a crowd which showed determined resistance, namely, on the evening 
of the 5th April, when fire had to be opened. There was also a great 
deal of incendiarism and in the first three days of incendiarism Fire 
Brigade had to deal with 1 1 o fires. An unprecedented feature of the 
riots was the attacks on temples by Muslims and on Mosques by Hindus 
which naturally led to intense bitterness. There were 44 deaths and 
584 persons were injured. There was a certain amorait of looting 
and business was suspended, with great economic loss to Calcutta. 



Shops began to reopen soon after the 5th, but the period of tension 
was prolonged by the approach of a Hindu festival on the I3th of 
April, and of the Id on the i4th. The Sikhs were to have taken 
out a procession on the I3th, but Government were unable to give 
them the necessary license* The apprehensions with regard to the 
1 3th and I4th of April, fortunately, did not materialise and outward 
peace prevailed until the 22nd April when it was abruptly broken 
as a result of a petty quarrel in a street which restarted the rioting. 
Fighting between mobs of the two communities, generally on a small 
scale, accompanied by isolated assaults and murders continued for 
six days. During this period there were no attacks on the temples 
or mosques and there was little arson or looting. But there were 
more numerous occasions on which the hostile mobs did not 
immediately disperse on the appearance of the police and on 12 
occasions it was necessary to open fire. The total number of 
casualties during this second phase of the rioting was 66 deaths and 
391 injured. The dislocation of business was much more serious 
during the first riots and the closing of Marwari business houses was 
not without an effect on European business firms. Panic caused 
many of the markets to be wholly or partially closed and for two 
days the meat supply was practically stopped. So great was the 
panic that the removal of refuse in the disturbed area was stopped 
Arrangements were, however, made to protect supplies, and the 
difficulty with the municipal scavengers was overcome as soon as the 
municipality, had applied to the police for protection. There was 
a slight extension of the area of rioting but no disturbances occurred 
in the mill area around Calcutta. Systematic raiding of the portions 
of the disturbed area, the arrest of hooligans, the seizure of weapons 
and the reinforcement of the police by the deputation of British 
soldiers to act as special police officers had the desired effect, and 
the last three days of April, in spite of the continuance of isolated 
assaults and murders, witnessed a steady improvement in the 
situation. Isolated murders were largely attributable to hooligans of 
both communities and their persistence during the first as well as the 
second outbreak induced a general belief that these hooligans were 
hired assassins. Another equally persistent feature of the riots* 
pamely the distribution of inflammatory printed leaflets by both sides' 


together with the employment of hired roughs, encouraged the 
belief that money had been spent to keep the fight going. 

The year 1926-27 was one continuous period of Communal 
riots. Since April 1926 every month witnessed affrays more or less 
serious between partizans of the two communities and only two 
months passed without actual rioting in the legal sense of the word* 
The examination of the circumstances of these numerous riots and 
affrays shows that they originated either in utterly petty and trivial 
disputes between individuals, as, for example, between a Hindu 
shopkeeper and a Muhammadan customer, or else the immediate 
cause of trouble was the celebration of some religious festival or the 
playing of music by Hindu processionists in the neighbourhood of 
Muhammadan places of worship. One or two of the riots, indeed, 
were due to nothing more than strained nerves and general 
excitement. Of these the most striking example occurred in Delhi 
on June 24th when the bolting of a pony in a crowded street gave 
the impression that a riot had started, upon which both sides 
immediately attacked each other with brickbats and staves. 

Including the two outbursts of rioting in Calcutta during 
April and May 1926, 40 riots took place during the twelve months 
ending with April ist 1927, resulting in the deaths of 197 persons 
and in injuries more or less severe to 1,598 others. These disorders 
were wide-spread, but Bengal, the Punjab, and the United Provinces 
were the parts of India most seriously affected. Bengal suffered 
most from rioting, but on many occasions during the year, tension 
between Hindus and Muhammadans was high in the Bombay. 
Presidency including its outlying division, Sind. Calcutta remained 
uneasy throughout the whole of the summer. On June ist a petty 
dispute developed into a riot in which forty persons were hurt 
After this, there was a lull in overt violence until July I5th on 
which day fell an important Hindu religious festival. During its 
celebration the passage of a procession with bands playing in the 
neighbourhood of certain mosques resulted in a conflict in which 
14 persons were killed and 116 injured. The next day saw the 
beginning of the important Muhammadan festival of Mohorrum. 
Rioting broke out on that day and after a lull, was renewed on the 
I gth, 2Oth, 2 ist and 22nd. Isolated assaults and cases of stabbing 


occurred on the 23rd, z^th and 25th. The total ascertained 
casualties during this period 01 rioting were 28 deaths and 
226 injured. There were further riots in Calcutta on the I5th 
September and i6th October and on the latter day there was also 
rioting in the adjoining city of Howrah, during which one or two 
persons were killed and over 30 injured. The April and May 
riots had been greatly aggravated by incendiarism, but, happily, 
this feature was almost entirely absent from the later disorders and 
during the July riots, for example, the Fire Brigade was called 
upon to deal with only four incendiary fires. 

Coming to the year 1927-28 the following facts stare us in the 
face. Between the beginning of April and the end of September 
1927, no fewer than 25 riots were reported. Of these 10 occurred 
in the United Provinces, six in the Bombay Presidency, to 2 each 
in the Punjab, the Central Provinces, Bengal, and Bihar and Orissa, 
and one in Delhi. The majority of these riots occurred during the 
celebration of a religious festival by one or other of the two 
communities, whilst some arose out of the playing of music by 
Hindus in the neighbourhood of mosques or out of the slaughter of 
cows by Muhammadans. The total casualties resulting from the 
above disorders were approximately 103 persons killed and 1,084 

By far the most serious riot reported during the year was that 
which took place in Lahore between the 4th and 7th of May 1927. 
Tension between the two communities had been acute for some time 
before the outbreak, and the trouble when it came was precipitated 
by a chance collision between a Muhammadaii and two Sikhs. 
The disorder spread with lightning speed and the heavy casualty 
list 27 killed add 272 injured -was largely swollen by unorganised 
attacks on individuals. Police and troops were rushed to the scene 
of rioting and quickly made it impossible for clashes on a big scale 
to take place between hostile groups. Casual assassinations and 
assaults were reported) however, for two or three days longer 
before the streets and lanes of Lahore became safe for solitary 

After the Lahore riot in May there was a lull of two months in 
inter-communal rioting, if we except a minor incident which 


happened about the middle of June in Bihar and Orissa ; tmt 

July witnessed no fewer than eight riots of which the most serious 

occurred in Multan in the Punjab, on the occasion of the annual 

Muharram celebrations. Thirteen killed and twenty-four wounded 

was the toll taken by this riot. But August was to see worse 

rioting still. In that month, nine riots occurred, two of them 

resulting in heavy loss of life. In a riot in Bettiah a town in Bihar 

and Orissa, arising out of a dispute over a religious procession, 

eleven persons were killed and over a hundred injured, whilst the 

passage of a procession in front of a mosque in Bareilly in the 

United Provinces was the occasion of rioting in which fourteen 

persons were killed and 165 were injured. Fortunately this proved 

to be the turning point in inter-communal trouble during the year, 

and September witnessed only 4 riots. One of these, however, the 

riot in Nagpur in the Central Provinces on September 4th, was 

second only to the Lahore riot in seriousness and in the damage 

which it occasioned. The spark which started the fire was the trouble 

in connection with a Muhammadan procession, but the materials 

for the combustion had been collecting for some time. Nineteen 

persons wore killed and 123 injured were admitted to hospital 

as a result of this riot, during the course of which many members of 

the Muhammadan community abandoned their homes in Nagpur. 

A feature of Hindu-Muhammadan relations during the year 
which was hardly less serious than the riots was the number of 
murderous outrages committed by members of one community 
against persons belonging to the other. Some of the most serious of 
these outrages were perpetrated in connection with the agitation 
relating to Rangila Rasul and Ilisala Vartman two publications 
containing most scurrrilous attack on the Prophet Muhammed 
and as a result of them, a number of innocent persons lost their 
lives, sometimes in circumstances of great barbarity. In Lahore 
a series of outrages against individuals led to a state of great 
excitement and insecurity during the summer of 1927. 

The excitement over the Rangila Rasul* case had by now 
travelled far from its original centre and by July had begun to 

* Rangila Ra&d was written in reply to Sitaka Chinafa a pamphlet written by a 
Musalman alleging that Sita wife of Rama the hero of Ramayana was a prostitute. 

1 66 WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part in 

produce unpleasant repercussions on and across the North- West Front- 
ier. The first signs of trouble in this region became apparent early in 
June, and by latter part of July the excitement had reached its height . 
On the British side of the border, firm and tactful handling of the situa- 
tion by the local authorities averted any serious breach of the peace. 
Kconomic boycott of Hindus was freely advocated in the British 
frontier districts, especially in Peshawar, but this movement met with 
little success, and although Hindus were maltreated in one or two 
villages, the arrest of the culprits, together with appropriate action 
under the Criminal Law, quickly restored order. Across the border 
however, the indignation aroused by these attacks on the Prophet 
gave rise to more serious consequences. The frontier tribesmen are 
acutely sensitive to the appeal of religion and when a well-known 
Mullah started to preach against the Hindus among the Afridis and 
Shinwaris in the neighbourhood of the Khybar Pass, his words fell 
on fruitful ground. He called upon the Afridis and Shinwaris to 
expel all Hindus living in their midst unless they declared in 
writing that they dissociated themselves from the doings of their 
co-religionists down country. The first to expel their Hindu 
neighbours were two clans of the Khybar Afridis, namely, the 
Kukikhel and Zakkakhel, on the 22nd of July. From these, the 
excitement spread among their Shinwari neighbours who gave their 
Hindu neighbours notice to quit a few days later. However, after 
the departure of some of the Hindus the Shinwaris agreed to allow 
the remainder to stay on. Some of the Hindus on leaving the 
Khyber were roughly handled. In two cases stones were thrown, 
though happily without any damage resulting. In a third affair 
a Hindu was wounded and a large amount of property carried off, 
but this was recovered by Afridi Khassadars in full, and the culprits 
were fined for the offence. Thereafter arrangements were made for 
the picketing of the road for the passage of any Hindus evacuating 
tribal territory. Under pressure from the Political Agent, an Afridi 
jiTga decided towards the end of July to suspend the Hindu boycott 
pending a decision in the Risala Vartman case. In the following 
week, however, several Hindu families, who had been living at 
Landi Kotal at the head of the Khyber Pass moved to Peshawar 
refusing to accept the assurances of the tribal chiefs but leaving one 


person from each family behind to watch over their interests. All 
told, between four hundred and four hundred and fifty Hindus, men, 
women and children, had come into Peshwar by the middle of 
August, when the trouble was definitely on the wane. Some of the 
Hindus were definitely expelled, some were induced to leave their 
homes by threats, some left from fear, some no doubt from sympathy 
with their neighbours. Expulsion and voluntary exodus from tribal 
territory were alike without parallel. Hindus had lived there for 
more generations than most of them could record as valued and 
respected, and, indeed, essential members of the tribal system, for 
whose protection the tribesmen had been jealous, and whose 
blood feuds they commonly made their own. In all, about 450 
Hindus left the Khybcr during the excitement ; of thess about 330 
had returned to their homes in tribal territoiy by the close of the 
year 1927. Most of the remainder had decided to settle, at any 
rate for the present, amid the more secure conditions of British 

The year 1928-29 was comparatively more peaceful than the 
year 1927-28. His Excellency Lord Irwin, by his speeches to the 
Central Legislature and outside the walls of the latter, had given 
a strong impetus to the attempts to find some basis for agreement 
between the two communities on those questions of political 
importance which are at least contributory causes of the strained 
relations between them. Again, the issues arising out of the 
Statutory Commission's enquiry have, to a large extent, absorbed 
the energy and attention of the different communities, with the 
result that less importance has been attached to local causes of 
conflict, and more importance to the broad question of constitutional 
policy. Moreover, the legislation passed during the autumn session 
of the Indian Legislature in 1927 penalising the instigation of 
inter-communal hostility by the press, had some effect in improving 
the inter- communal position. But the year was not altogether free 
from Communal disturbances. The number of riots during the 
12 months ending with March 3ist, 1929, was 22. But though the 
number of riots is comparatively small, unfortunately, the 
casualties, which were swelled heavily by the Bombay riots, were 
very serious, no fewer than 204 persons having been killed and 


nearly a thousand injured. Of these, the fortnight's rioting in 
Bombay accounts for 149 killed and 739 injured. Seven of these 
22 riots, or roughly one third of them, occurred on the day of the 
celebration of the annual Muhammadan festival of JBakr-i-ld at the 
end of May. The celebration of this festival is always a dangerous 
time in Hindu-Muslim relations because part of the ceremony 
consists in animal sacrifice, and when cows are the animals chosen, 
the slightest tension between Hindus and Muslims is apt to produce 
an explosion. Of the Ha7tr-i-Id riots only two were serious and both 
of them took place in the Punjab. In a village of the Ambala 
District ten people were killed and nine injured in a riot, whilst the 
other riot referred to here, that which took place in Softa village of 
Gurgaon District in the Southern Punjab, attained considerable 
notoriety because of its sensational features. The village of Softa is 
about 27 miles south of Delhi, and is inhabited by Muslims. This 
village is surrounded by villages occupied by Hindu cultivators who, 
on hearing that the Muslims of Softa intended to sacrifice a cow on 
' Id Day ' objected to the sacrifice of the particular cow selected on the 
ground that it had been accustomed to graze in fields belonging to 
the Hindu cultivators. The dispute over the matter assumed 
a threatening aspect and the Superintendent of Police of the district 
accordingly went with a small force of police, about 25 men in all, 
to try to keep peace. He took charge of the disputed cow and 
locked it up, but his presence did not deter the Hindu cultivators 
of a few neighbouring villages from collecting about a thousand 
people armed with pitchforks, spears and staves, and going to Softa. 
The Superintendent of Police and an Indian Revenue official, who 
were present in the village, assured the crowd that the cow, in 
connection with which the dispute had arisen would not be sacrificed, 
but this did not satisfy the mob which threatened to burn the whole 
village if any cow was sacrificed, and also demanded that the cow 
should be handed over to them. The Superintendent of Police 
refused to agree to this demand, whereupon the crowd became 
violent and began to throw stones at the police and to try to get 

rouvnd the latter into the village. The Superintendent of Police 

warned the crowd to disperse, but to no effect. He, therefore, 

fired owe shot from his revolver as a forther warning, but the crowd 


still continued to advance and he had to order his party of police to 
fire* Only one volley was fired at first, but as this did not cause 
the retreat of the mob two more villages had to be fired before the 
crowd slowly dispersed, driving off some cattle belonging to the 

While the police were engaged in this affair a few Hindu 
cultivators got into Softa at another place and tried to set fire to 
the village. These were, however, driven away by the police after 
they had inflicted injuries on three or four men. In all 14 persons 
were killed and 33 injured in this affair. The Punjab Government 
deputed a judicial officer to enquire into this affair. His report, 
which was published on July the 6th, justified the action of the police 
in firing on the mob and recorded the opinion that there was no 
reason to suppose that the firing was excessive or was continued after 
the mob had desisted from its unlawful aggression. Had the police 
not opened fire, the report proceeds, their own lives would have 
been in immediate danger, as also would the lives of the people of 
Softa. Lastly, in the opinion of the officer writing the report, had 
Softa village been sacked there would certainly have been within 
24 hours a communal conflagration of such violence in the 
surrounding country-side that a very large number of casualties must 
have been entailed. 

The riots of Kharagpur, an important railway centre not far 
from Calcutta, also resulted in serious loss of life. Two riots took 
place at Kharagpur, the first on the occasion of the Muharram 
celebration at the end of June and the second on the ist September 
1928 when the killing of a cow was the signal for trouble to begin. 
In the first riot 15 were killed and 21 injured, while in the second 
riot the casualties were 9 killed and 35 wounded. But none of these 
riots are to be compared with the long outbreak in Bombay from 
the beginning to the middle of February, when, as we have seen, 
149 persons were killed and well over 700 injured. 

During the year 1929-30 communal riots, which had been so 
conspicuous and deplorable a feature of public life during the 
preceding years, were very much less frequent. Only 12 were of 
sufficient importance to be reported to the Government of India, 


170 WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part ra 

and of these only the disturbances in the City of Bombay were really 
serious. Starting on the 23rd of April they continued sporadically 
until the middle of May, and were responsible for 35 deaths and 
about 200 other casualties. An event which caused considerable 
tension in April was the murder at Lahore of Raj pal, whose pamphlet 
" R&ngilci' Rasiil ", containing a scurrilous attack on the Prophet of 
Islam, was responsible for much of the communal trouble in previous 
years, and also for a variety ol legal and political complications. 
Fortunately, both communities showed commendable restraint at the 
time of the murder, and again on the occasion of the execution and 
funeral of the convicted man ; and although feelings ran high no 
serious trouble occurred. 

Coming to the year 1930-31 there occurred innumerable 
communal disturbances mostly due to the Muslim opposition to the 
Civil Disobedience movement started by the Congress in that year. 
Among the various riots and disturbances the majority of which 
arose out of events connected with Congress activities were the 
following. In July, 8th, gth and loth, there were disturbances in 
Rangpur (Bengal), Vellore (Madras), and Lahore ; and on the 
nth, disturbances occurred in Bombay and Etah (United Provinces). 
On the 1 7th, there was a riot in Madura (Madras) and a disturbance 
in Amroati (Central Provinces) ; and there were disturbances in 
Jubbulpore (Central Provinces) and in Calcutta on the igth. 
On the 23rd a riot occurred in Shikarpur (Sind) and on the following 
day a disturbance in Ludhiana (Punjab). In August, there were 
disturbances in Bombay on the 2nd, in Champaran District (Bihar) 
on the 1 2th, in Amritsar on the I4th, in Karachi on the 2 2nd, and 
in Kaira District (Bombay) on the 3ist. On the 24th, a party of 
police was attacked in Beitul District (Central Provinces ) by Gond 
tribesmen who had been breaking the Forest Law at the instigation 
of the Congress. In September, on the ist and 2nd, there were 
disturbances in Khulna District (Bengal) and in Karachi, and on the 
4th there was an affray between the police and agriculturists who 
had been incited by Congress workers to defy the Government in 
Satara District (Bombay). A riot occurred in Bulandshahr District 
(United Provinces) on the I2th, and a disturbance in Raipur 
(Central Provinces) on the i6tbu On the 25th there was a serious 


riot near Panvel (Bombay) as a result of incidents not dissimilar to 
those which provoked the clash with the police in Satara District 
three weeks previously. A disturbance occurred in Moradabad on 
the 26th, and there was trouble in Gopinathpore ( Bengal ) and 
Raipur (Central Provinces) on the 3Oth. There was no serious 
rioting during October, but disturbances occurred near Cawnpore on 
the 2nd, in Midnapore District (Bengal) on the 3rd, in Roorkee 
( United Provinces ) and near Tamluk ( Bengal ) on the 4th, in the 
Bhandara and Seoni Districts of the Central Provinces on the 6th 
and loth respectively, in Tippera District (Bengal) on the 1 7th, 
near Nasik (Bombay) on the igth, in Dinajpur District (Bengal) 
on the 22nd, in Moradabad on the 24th, in Bombay on the 26th, 
near Chandausi (United Provinces) on the 28th, and in Delhi on 
the 2gth. Disturbances also took place in Bombay on the 5th and 
7th of November, and there w r as a riot in the Santal Parganas ( Bihar 
and Orissa) on the ioth/i2th. The persistent refusal of the majority 
of Muslims to participate in the Civil Disobedience caused some 
increase in communal tension during this period, and several serious 
Hindu-Muslim riots occurred, of which perhaps the worst were 
those which took place in and around Sukkur in Sind between the 
4th and iith of August and affected over a hundred villages. The 
outbreak in the Kishoreganj subdivision of Mymensingh District 
(Bengal) on the I2th/i5th of July was also on a large scale. In 
addition, there were communal disturbances on the 3rd of August 
in Ballia (United Provinces); on the 6th of September in Nagpur, 
and on the 6th/7th September in Bombay ; and a Hindu-Christian 
riot broke out near Tiruchendur (Madras) on the 3ist of October. 
On the 1 2th of February, in Amritsar, an attempt was made to 
murder a Hindu cloth merchant who had defied the picketers, and 
a similar outrage which was perpetrated the day before in Benares 
had very serious consequences. In this instance the victim was 
a Muslim trader, and the attack proved fatal ; as a result, since 
Hindu- Moslem relations throughout most of Northern India were by 
this time very strained, a serious communal riot broke out and 
continued for five days, causing great destruction of property and 
numerous casualties. Among the other communal clashes during this 
period were the riots at Nilphamari (Bengal) on the 25th of January 
and at Rawalpindi on the 3ist, The relations between Hindus and 

172: WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part ni 

Muslims throughout Northern India had markedly deteriorated 
during the first two months of 1931, and already, in February, there 
had been serious communal rioting in Benares. This state of affairs 
was due chiefly to the increasing exasperation created among Muslims 
by the paralysis of trade and the general atmosphere of unrest and 
confusion that resulted from Congress activities. In addition, the 
disappointment felt by certain Muslim delegates at the results of the 
Round Table Conference doubtless indirectly had some effect on the 
situation, and the increased importance which the Congress seemed 
to be acquiring as a result of the negotiations with the Government 
caused the community serious apprehensions, in view of the 
tyrannical and sometimes violent methods the supporters of the Civil 
Disobedience movement had been adopting in order to enforce their 
wishes. The rioting in Benares, had been directly due to the murder 
of a Muslim trader who had defied the Congress picketers. During 
March, the tension between the two communities, in the United 
Provinces at any rate, greatly increased. Between the I4th and i6th 
there was serious rioting in the Mirzapur District, and on the I7th, 
trouble broke out in Agra and continued till the 2Oth. On the 25th, 
when Congress workers endeavoured to induce Muslim shopkeepers 
in Cawnpore to close their premises in honour of the memory of 
Bhagat Singh, the Muslims resisted, and fighting thereupon extended 
throughont the city with extraordinary rapidity. For at least two 
days the situation was altogether out of control, and the loss of life 
and destruction of property was appalling. This communal riot, 
which need never have occurred but for the provocative conduct of the 
adherents of the Congress, was the worst which India has experienced 
for many years. The trouble moreover spread from the city to the 
neighbouring villages, where there were sporadic communal distur- 
bances for several days afterwards. There was also a communal 
riot in Dhanbad (Bengal) on the 28th, and in Amritsar District on 
the 3<Dth ; and in many other parts of the country at this time the 
relations between members of the two communities were extremly 

In Assam the communal riot which occurred at Digboi in 
Lakhimpur District resulted in the deaths of one Hindu and 
Muhammadans. In B^jgal among the v^ty numerous cases of 


riots that occurred, mention may be made of the incident in Howrah 
on the loth June, when the police were attacked by a mob while 
arresting persons accused of theft ; of three cases in Bakarganj 
District, when the police were violently assaulted while discharging 
their duties ; of the occurrence in Burdwan on the gth of September, 
when a political prisoner who had been arrested on a warrant was 
forcibly rescued by a large number of villagers ; and of the communal 
riot which took place in the Asansol division during the Muharram 
festival. In Bihar and Orissa there was a certain amount of communal 
tension during the year, particularly in Saran. Altogether there were 
1 6 cases of communal rioting and unlawful assembly. During the 
Bakri-Id festival a clash occurred in the Bhabua sub-division of 
Shahabad. Some 300 Hindus collected in the mistaken belief that 
a sacrifice of cattle had taken place. The local officers had succeeded 
in pacifying them when a mob of about 200 Muhammadans armed with 
lathis, spears and swords, attacked the Hindus, one of whom 
subsequently died. The prompt action of the police and the 
conciliation committee prevented a spread of the trouble. The 
Muharram festival was marked by two small riots in Monghyr, the 
Hindus being the aggressors on one occasion and the Muhammadans 
on the other, and affrays also occurred between Muhammadans in 
Darbhanga and Muzaffarpur District, one man dying of injuries in 
the latter place. In the Madras Presidency there were also several 
riots of a communal nature during the year and the relations between 
the two communities were in places distinctly strained. The most 
serious disturbance of the year occurred at Veil ore on the 8th of June, 
as a result of the passage of a Muhammadan procession with 
Tazias near a Hindu temple ; so violent was the conflct between 
members of the two communities that the police were compelled to 
open fire in order to restore order ; and sporadic fighting continued 
in the town during the next two or three days. In Salem town, 
owing to Hindu- Muslim tension a dispute arose on the 13th of 
July, as to who had been the victor at a largely attended Hindu- 
Muslims wrestling match at Shevapet. Another riot occurred in 
October at Kitchipalaiyam near Salem town ; the trouble arose from 
a few Muhammadans disturbing a street game played by some young 
Hindus. Hindu-Muslim disturbances also arose in Polikal village, 
Kurnool District, on the J5th of March, owing to a dispute about 


. ' * i 

the route of a Hindu procession, but the rioters were easily dispersed 
by a small force of police. The factious quarrel between the Hindu 
and Christian Nadars at Pallipathu, in Tinnevelly District, culminated 
in a riot in which the Christians used a gun. In the Punjab as 
regards rioting, there were 907 cases during the year as compared 
with 813 in 1929. Many of them were of a communal character, 
and the tension between the two principal communities remained 
acute in many parts of the Province. In the United Provinces 
although communal tension in the Province during 1930 was not 
nearly so acute as during the first 3 months of 1931, and was for 
a while overshadowed by the excitement engendered by the Civil 
Disobedience movement, indications of it were fairly numerous, and 
the causes of disagreement remained as potent as ever. In Dehra 
Dun and Bulandshahr there were communal riots of the usual type, 
and a very serious riot occurred in Ballia City as a result of a dispute 
concerning the route taken by a Hindu procession, which necessitated 
firing by the police. In Muttra, Azamgarh, Mainpuri and several 
other places riots also occurred. 

Passing to the year 1931-32, the progress of constitutional 
discussions had a definite reaction in that it bred a certain nervous- 
ness among the Muslim and other minority communities as to their 
position under a constitution functioning on the majority principle. 
The first session of the Round Table Conference afforded the first 
" close-up " of the constitutional future. Until then the ideal of 
Dominon Status had progressed little beyond a vague and general 
conception, but the declaration of the Princes at the opening of the 
Conference had brought responsibility at the Centre, in the form of 
a federal government, within definite view. The Muslims therefore 
felt that it was high time for them to take stock of their position. 
Within a few months this uneasiness was intensified by the Irwin- 
Gandhi settlement, which accorded what appeared to be a privileged 
position to the Congress, and Congress elation and pose of victory 
over the Government did not tend to ease Muslim misgivings. 
Within three weeks of the " pact " occurred the savage communal 
riots at Cawnpore, which significantly enough began with the 
attempts of Congress adherents to force Mahomedan shopkeepers 
to observe a hartal in memory of Bhagat Singh who was executed 


on 23rd March. On the 24th March began the plunder of Hindu 
shops. On the 25th there was a blaze. Shops and temples were 
set fire to and burnt to cinders. Disorder, arson, loot, murder, 
spread like wild fire. Five hundred families abandoned their 
houses and took shelter in villages. Dr. Ramchandra was one of the 
worse sufferers. All members of his family, including his wife and 
aged parents, were killed and their bodies thrown into gutters. In 
the same slaughter Mr. Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi lost his life. The 
Cownpore Riots Inquiry Committee in its Report states that the 
riot was of unprecedented violence and peculiar atrocity, which 
spread with unexpected rapidity through the whole city and even 
beyond it. Murders, arson, and looting were wide-spread for three 
days, before the rioting was definitely brought under control. 
Afterwards it subsided gradually. The loss of life and property was 
great. The number of verified deaths was 300, but the death roll 
is known to have ben larger and was probably between four and 
five hundred. A large number of temples and mosques were 
desecrated or burnt or destroyed and a very large number of houses 
were burnt and pillaged. 

The year 1932-33 was relatively free from communal agita- 
tions and disturbances. This welcome improvement was doubtless 
in some measure due to the suppression of lawlessness generally and 
the removal of uncertainty in regard to the position of Muslims 
under the new constitution. 

But in 1933-34 throughout the country communal tension 
had been increasing and disorders which occurred not only on the 
occasion of such festivals as Holi, Id and Muharram, but also many 
resulting from ordinary incidents of every day life indicated that 
there had been a deterioration in communal relations since the year 
began. Communal riots during Holi occurred at Benares and 
Cawnpore in the United Provinces, at Lahore in the Punjab, and 
at Peshawar. Bakr-i-Id was marked by serious rioting at Ajodhya, 
in the United Provinces over cow sacrifice, also at Bhagalpore in 
Bihar and Orissa and at Cannanore in Madras. A serious riot in 
the Ghazipur District of the United Provinces also resulted in several 
deaths. During April and May there were Hindu-Muslim riots 


at several places in Bihar and Orissa, in Bengal, in Sind and Delhi, 
some of them provoked by very trifling incidents, as for instance, the 
unintentional spitting by a Muslim shopkeeper of Delhi upon 
a Hindu passer-by. The increase in communal disputes in British 
India was also reflected in some of the States where similar incidents 

The position with regard to communal unrest during the 
months from June to October is indicative of little else than the 
normal deep-seated antagonism which has long existed between the 
two major communities. June and July months in which no 
Hindu or Muhammadan festival of importance took place, were 
comparatively free from riots, though the situation in certain areas 
of Bihar necessitated the quartering of additional police, and a long 
drawn-out dispute started in Agra. Muslims of this city objected 
to the noise of religious ceremonies in certain Hindu private houses 
which they said disturbed worshippers at prayers in a neighbouring 
mosque. Before the dispute was settled riots occurred on 2Oth 
July and again on 2nd September, in the course of which 4 persons 
were killed and over 80 injured. In Madras a riot on the 3rd 
September resulting in one death and injuries to 13 persons, was 
occasioned by a book published by Hindus containing alleged 
reflections on the Prophet ; during the same month minor riots 
occurred in several places in the Punjab and the United Provinces. 

In 1934-35 serious trouble arose in Lahore on the 29th June 
as a result of a dispute between Muslims and Sikhs about a mosque 
situated within the precincts of a Sikh temple known as the 
Shahidganj Gurudwara. Trouble had been brewing for some time. 
Ill-feeling became intensified when the Sikhs started to demolish the 
mosque despite Muslim protests. The building had been in 
possession of the Sikhs for 170 years and has been the subject of 
prolonged litigation, which has confirmed the Sikh right of 

On the night of the 29th June a crowd of 3 or 4 thousand 
Muslims assembled in front of the Gurudwara. A struggle between 
this crowd and the Sikhs inside the Gurudwara was only averted by 
the proi&pt action of the local authorities. They subsequently 
obtaraed an undertaking from the Sikhs to refrain from further 


demolition. But during the following week, while strenuous efforts 
were being made to persuade the leaders to reach an amicable 
settlement, the Sikhs under pressure of extremist influence again set 
about demolishing the mosque. This placed the authorities in 
a most difficult position. The Sikhs were acting within their legal 
rights. Moreover the only effective method of stopping demolition 
would have been to resort to firing. As the building was full of 
Sikhs and was within the precincts of a Sikh place of worship, this 
would not only have caused much bloodshed but, for religious 
reasons, would have had serious reactions on the Sikh population 
throughout the province. On the other hand, inaction by 
Government was bound to cause great indignation among the 
Muslims, for religious reasons also ; and it was expected that this 
would show itself in sporadic attacks on the Sikhs and perhaps on 
the forces of Government. 

It was hoped that discussions between leaders of the two 
communities would effect some rapprochment, but mischief-makers 
inflamed the minds of their co-religionists. Despite the arrest of the 
chief offenders, the excitement increased. The Government's gesture 
in offering to restore to the Muslims another mosque which they had 
purchased years ago proved unavailing. The situation took a further 
turn for the worse on the igth July and during the following two 
days the situation was acutely dangerous. The central police 
station was practically besieged by huge crowds, which assumed 
a most menacing attitude. Repeated attempts to disperse them 
without the use of firearms failed and the troops had to fire twice on 
the 2Oth July and eight times on the 21. In all 23 rounds were fired 
and 12 persons killed. Casualties, mostly of a minor nature, were 
numerous amongst the military and police. 

As a result of the firing the crowds dispersed and did not 
re-assemble. Extra police were brought in from other provinces and 
the military garrisons were strengthened. Administrative control was 
re-established rapidly, but the religious leaders continued to fan the 
embers of the agitation. Civil litigation was renewed and certain 
Muslim organisations framed some extravagant demands, 


The situation in Lahore continued to cause anxiety up to the 
close of the year. On the 6th November a Sikh was mortally 
wounded by a Muslim. Three days later a huge Sikh-Hindu 
procession was taken out. The organisers appeared anxious to avoid 
conflict but none-the-less one serious clash occurred. This was 
followed by further rioting on the next day, but owing to good work 
by the police and the troops in breaking up the fights quickly, the 
casualties were small. 

On the i gth March 1935 a serious incident occurred at 
Karachi after the execution of Abdul Quayum a Muslim who had 
murdered Nathuram at a Hindu alleged to have insulted Islam. 
Abdul Quayum 's body was taken by the District Magistrate, 
accompanied by a police party, to be handed over to the deceased's 
family for burial outside the city ; A huge crowd, estimated to be 
about 25,000 strong, collected at the place of burial. Though the 
relatives of Abdul Quayum wished to complete the burial at the 
cemetery, the most violent members of the mob determined to take 
the body in procession through the city. The local authorities 
decided to prevent the mob entering, since this would have led to 
communal rioting. All attempts of the police to stop the procession 
failed, so a platoon of the Royal Sussex Regiment was brought up. 
It was forced to open fire at short range to stop the advance of the 
frenzied mob and to prevent itself from being overwhelmed. Forty 
seven rounds were fired by which 47 people were killed and 134 
injured. The arrival of reinforcements prevented further attempts 
to advance. The wounded were taken to the Civil Hospital and 
the body of Abdul Quayum was then interred without further 

On 25th August 1935 there was a communal riot at 

In the year 1936 there Avere four communal riots. On the 
1 4th April there occurred a most terrible riot at Firozabad in the 
Agra District. A Mahomedan procession was proceeding along the 
main bazar and it is alleged that bricks were thrown from the roofs 
of Hindu houses. This enraged the Mahomedans in the procession 
who set fire to the house of a Hindu Dr. Jivaram and the adjacent 


temple of Radha Krishna. The inmates of Dr. Jivaram's house 
perished in the fire in addition to n Hindus including 3 children who 
were burnt to death inside Dr. Jivaram's house. A second Hindu 
Muslim riot broke out in Poona in the Bombay Presidency on 24th 
April 1936. On the 27th April there occurred a Hindu-Moslem 
riot in Jamalpur in the Monghyr District. The fourth Hindu- 
Moslem riot of the year took place in Bombay on- I5th 
October 1936. 

The year 1937 was full of communal disturbances. On the 
27th March 1937 there was a Hindu-Moslem riot at Panipat over 
the Holi procession and 14 persons were killed. On ist May 1937 
there occurred a communal riot in Madras in which 50 persons 
were injured. The month of May was full of communal riots 
which took place in C. P. and Punjab. The one that took place in 
Shikarpur in Sind caused great panic. On i8th June there was 
a Sikh-Muslim riot in Amritsar. It assumed such proportions 
that British troops had to be called out to maintain order. 

The year 1938 was marked by two communal riots one in 
Allahabad on 26th March and another in Bombay in April. 

There were 6 Hindu-Moslem riots in 1939. On 2ist January 
there was a riot at Asansol in which one was killed and 18 injured. 
It was followed by a riot in Cawnpore on the nth February in 
which 42 were killed, 200 injured and 800 arrested. On the 4th 
March there was a riot at Benares followed by a riot at Cassipore 
near Calcutta on the 5th of March. On igth June there was again 
a riot at Cawnpoie over the Rathajatra procession. A serious riot 
occurred on 2Oth November 1939 at Sukkur in which 21 were 
killed and 23 injured. 

"Who can deny that this record of rioting presents a picture 
which is grim in its results and sombre in its tone ? But being 
chronological in order the record might fail to give an idea of the 
havoc these riots have caused in any given province and the 
paralysis it has brought about in its social and economic life. To 
give an idea of the paralysis caused by the recurrence of riots in 
a province I have recast the record of riots for the Province of 
Bombay. As recast it reads thus : 

1 86 WHAT, IF NOT pAi&stAfc (part nt 

Leaving aside the Presidency and confining oneself to the 
City of Bombay there can be no doubt that the record of the city is 
the blackest. The first Hindu-Moslem riot took place in 1893. 
This was followed by a long period of communal peace which 
lasted upto 1929. But the years that have followed have an appalling 
story to tell. From February 1929 to April 1938 a period of nine years 
there were no less than 10 communal riots. In 1929 there were 
two communal riots. In the firs., 149 were killed and 739 were 
injured and it lasted for 36 days. In the second riot 35 were 
killed, 109 were injured and it continued for 22 days. In 1930 
there were two riots. Details as to loss of life and its duration are 
not available. In 1932 there were again two riots. First was a small 
one. In the second 217 were killed, 2,713 were injured and it went 
on for 49 days. In 1933 there was one riot, details about which are 
not available. In 1936 there was one riot in which 94 were killed, 632 
were injured and it continued to rage for 65 days. In the riot 
of 1937, ii were killed, 85 were injured and it occupied 21 days. 
The riot of 1938 lasted for 2^- hours only but within that time 12 
were killed and a little over 100 were injured. Taking the total 
peiiod of 9 years and 2 months from February 1929 to April 1938 
the Hindus and Muslims of the city of Bombay alone were engaged 
in a sangunary warfare for 210 days during which period 550 were 
killed and 4,500 were wounded. This does not of course take into 
consideration the loss of property which took place through arson 
and loot. 


Such is the record of Hindu- Moslem relationship from 1920 to 
1940. Placed side by side with the frantic efforts were made by 
Mr. Gandhi to bring about Hindu-Moslem unity, the record makes 
a most painful and heart-rending reading. There would not be 
much exaggeration to say that it is a record of twenty years of 
civil w?ir between Hindus and Muslims in India, interrupted by brief 
intervals of armed peace. 


In this civil war men were, of course the principal victims* 
But women did not altogether escape molestation. It is perhaps 
not sufficiently known how much women have suffered in this 
communal hostilities. Data relating to the whole of India is not 
available. But some data relating to Bengal does exist. 

On the 6th September 1932 questions were asked in the old 
Bengal Legislative Council regarding the abduction of women in the 
Province of Bengal. In reply, the Government of the day stated 
that between 1922 to 1927 the total number of women abducted was 
568. Of these 101 were unmarried and 467 were married. Asked 
to state the community to which the abducted women belonged, it 
was disclosed that out of 101 unmarried women 64 were Hindus, 
29 Muslims, 4 Christians and 4 non-descript : and that out of 467 
married women 331 were Hindus, 122 Muslims, 2 Christians and 
12 non-descript. These figures relate to cases which were reported 
detected. They do not refer to cases which were either not reported 
or if reported were not detected. Usually, only about 10 p.c. of the 
cases are reported or detected and 90 p.c. go undetected. Applying 
this proportion to the facts disclosed by the Bengal Government, it 
may be said that about 35,000 women were abducted in Bengal 
during the short period of five years between 1922-27. 

The attitude towards women folk is a good index of the friendly 
or unfriendly attitude between the two communities. As such the 
case which happened on 27-6-36 in the village of Govindpur in 
Bengal makes very instructive reading. The following account of it 
is taken from the opening speech* of the crown counsel when the 
trial of 40 Mahomedan accused began on the loth August 1936. 
According to the prosecution : 

" There lived in Govindpur a Hindu by name Radha Vallabh. 
He had a son Harendra. There lived also in Govindpur a Muslim 
woman whose occupation was to sell milk. The local Musalmans 
of the village suspected that Harendra had illicit relationship with 
this Muslim milk woman. They resented that a Muslim woman 
should be in the keeping of a Hindu and they decided to wreck 
their vengeance on the family of Radha Vallabh for this insult. 

* From the Report which appeared in the Swxtdliau a Marathi weekly of Nagpur in ite 
Issue of 25th August 1936* 


A meeting of the Musalmans of Govindpur was convened and 
Harendra was summoned to attend this meeting. Soon after Harendra 
went to the meeting cries of Harendra were heard. It was found 
that Harendra was assaulted and was lying senseless in the field 
where the meeting was held. The Musalmans of Govindpur were 
not satisfied with this assault. They informed Radha Vallabh that 
unless he, his wife and his children embraced Islam the Musalmans 
will not feel satisfied for the wrong his son had done to them. 
Radha Vallabh was planing to send away to another place his wife 
and children. The Musalmans came to know of this plan. Next 
day when Kusum, the wife of Radha Vallabh, was sweeping the 
court yard of her house, some Mahomeclans came, held down 
Radha Vallabh and some spirited away Kusum. After having taken 
her to some distance two Mahomedans by name Laker and Mahazar 
raped her and removed her ornaments. After some time she came to 
her senses and ran towards her home. Her assailants again purused 
her. She succeeded in reaching her home and locking herself in. 
Her Muslim assailants broke open the door caught hold of her and 
again carried her away on the road. It was suggested by her 
assailants that she should be again raped on the street. But with 
the help of another woman by name Rajani, Kusum escaped and 
took shelter in the house of Rajani. While she was in the house of 
Rajani the Musalmans of Govindpur paraded her husband Radha 
Vallabh in the streets in complete disgrace. Next day the 
Musalmans kept watch on the roads to and from Govindpur to the 
Police station to prevent Radha Vallabh and Kusum from giving 
information of the outrage to the Police/' 

These acts of barbarism against women, committed without 
remorse, without shame and without condemnation by their fellow 
brethren show the depth of the antagonism which divided the two com- 
munities. The tempers on each side were the tempers of two warring 
nations. There was carnage, pillage, sacrilege and outrage of every 
species, perpetrated by Hindus against Musalmans and by Musalmans 
against Hindus more perhaps by Musalmans against Hindus than by 
Hindus against Musalmans. Cases of arson have occurred in which 
Musalmans have set fire to the houses of Hindus in which the whole 
families of Hindus, men, women and children were roasted alive and 
consumed in the fire, to the great satisfaction of the Muslim 
spectators. What is ashtonishing is that these cold and deliberate 
acts of rank cruelty were not regarded as atrocities to be condemned 


but were treated as legitimate acts of warfare for which no apology 
was necessary. Enraged by these hostilities, the editor of the 
Hindustan a Congress Paper writing in 1926 used the following 
language to express the painful truth of the utter failure of 
Mr. Gandhi's efforts to bring about Hindu-Moslem unity. In words 
of utter dispair the editor said* : 

" There is an immoiice distance between the India of to-day and 
India a nation, between an uncouth reality which expresses itself in 
murder and arson and that fond fiction which is in the imagination 
of patriotic if self-deceiving men. To talk about Hindu-Moslem 
unity from a thousand platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is 
to perpetrate an illusion whose cloudy structure dissolves itself at the 
exchange of brick-bats and the desecration of tombs and temples. 

To sing a few pious hymns of peace and good will a la Naidu will 

not benefit the country. The President of the Congress lias been 
improvising on the theme of Hindu-Moslem unity, so dear to her 
heart, witli brilliant variations, which does credit to her genius but 
leaves the problem untouched. The millions in India can only 
respond when the unity song is not only on the tongues of the 
leaders but in the hearts of the millions of their countrymen." 

Nothing I coulcl say can so well show the futility of any 
hope of Hindu- Moslem unity. Hindu-Moslem unity up to now was 
at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of 
sight and also out of mind. Even Mr. Gandhi has given up what, 
he perhaps now realizes, is an impossible task. 

But there are others who notwithstanding the history of past 
twenty years believe in the possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity. 
This belief of theirs seems to rest on two grounds. Firstly, they 
believe in the efficacy of a Central Government to mould diverse 
set of peoples into one nation. Secondly they feel that the 
satisfaction of Muslim demands will be a sure means of achieving 
Hindu-Muslim unity. 

It is true that Government is a unifying force and that there 
are many instances where diverse people have become unified into 
one homogeneous people by reason of their being subjected to a 
single government. But the Hindus who are depending, upon 

* Quoted in " Through Indian Eyes " Columns of the Times of India, dated 16-8-36, 


Government as a unifying force seem to forget that there are obvious 
limits to Government acting as a unifying force. The limits to 
Government working as a unifying force are set by the possibilities 
of fusion among the people. In a country where race, language 
and religion do not stand in the way of fusion Government, as 
a unifying force, is most effective. On the other hand in a country 
where race, language and religion put an effective bar against fusion 
Government, as a unifying force, can have no effect. If the diverse 
peoples in France, England, Italy and Germany became unified 
nations by reason of a common Government, it is because neither 
race, language nor religion obstructed the unifying process of 
Government* On the other hand if the people in Austria, Hungary, 
Czechoslovakia and Turkey failed to be unified, although under 
a common government, it is because race, language and religion 
were effective enough to counter and nullify the unifying effect of 
Government. No one can deny that race, language and religion 
have been too dominant in India to permit the people of India to 
be welded into a nation by the unifying force of a common Government. 
It is an illusion to say that the Central Government in India has 
moulded the Indian people into a nation. What the Central 
Government has done, is to tie them together, by one law and 
house them together in one place, as the owner of unruly animals 
does, by tying them in one rope and keeping them in one stable. 
All that the Central Government has done is to produce a kind of 
peace among Indians. It has not made them one nation. 

It cannot be said that time has been too short for unification to 
take place. If one hundred and fifty years of life under a Central 
Government does not suffice, enternity will not suffice. For this 
failure the genius of the Indians alone is responsible. There is, 
among Indians no passion for unity, no desire for fusion. There is 
no desire to have a common dress. There is no desire to have 
a common language. There is no will to give up what is local and 
particular for something which is common and national. AGujarati 
takes pride in being a Gujarati, a Maharashtriyan in being 
a Maharashtriyan, a Punjabi in being a Punjabi, a Madrasi in being 
a Madrasi and a Bengali prides in being a Bengali. Such is the 
mentality of the Hindus who accuse the Musalraan of want of national 


feeling when he says that I am a Musalman first and Indian after- 
wards. Can any one suggest that there exists anywhere in India 
even among the Hindus an instinct or a passion that would put any 
semblance of emotion behind their declaration " Civis Indianus 
sum " or the smallest consciousness of a moral and social unity 
which desires to give expression by sacrificing whatever is particular 
and local in favour of what is common and unifying ? There is 
no such consciousness and no such desire. Without such conscious- 
ness and without such desire to depend upon Government to bring 
about unification is to deceive oneself. 

Regarding the second it was no doubt the opinion of the Simon 
Commission : 

" That the Communal riots were a manifestation of the anxieties 
and ambitions aroused in both the communities by the prospect of 
India's political future. So long as authority was firmly established 
in British hands and self-government was not thought of, Hindu- 
Moslem rivalry was confined within a narrower field. This was not 
merely because the presence of a neutral bureaucracy discouraged 
strife. A further reason was that there was little for members of one 
community to fear from the predominance of the other. The 
comparative absence of communal strife In the Indian States today 
may be similarly explained. Many who are well acquainted with 
conditions in British India a generation ago would testify that at that 
epoch so much good feeling had been engendered between the two 
sides that communal tension as a threat to civil peace was at 
a minimum. But the coming of the Reforms and the anticipation of 
what may follow them have given new point to Hindu-Moslem 
competition. The one community naturally lays claim to the rights 
of a majority and relies upon its qualifications of better education and 
greater wealth ; the other is all the more determined on those 
accounts to secure effective protection for its members, and does not 
forget that It represents the previous conquerors of the country. It 
wishes to be assured of adequate representation and of a full share of 
official posts/' 

Assuming that to be a true diagnosis, assuming that Muslim 
demands are reasonable, assuming that the Hindus were prepared 
to grant them and these are all very big assumptions it is a question 
wheather a true union between Hindus ^nd Muslims pan take place 

J$6 WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part 111 

through political unity resulting from the satisfaction of Muslim 
political demands. Some people seem to think that it is enough if 
there is a political unity between Hindus and Muslims. I think this 
is the greatest delusion. Those who take this view seem to be 
thinking only of how to bring the Muslims to join the Hindus in 
their demands on the British for Dominion Status or Independence 
as the mood of the moment be. This, to say the least, is a very 
shortsighted view. How to make the Muslims join the Hindus in 
the latter's demands on the British is comparatively a very small 
question. In what spirit they will work the constitution ? Will they 
work it only as aliens bound by an unwanted tie or will they work 
it as true kindreds, is the more important question. For working it 
as true kindreds, what is wanted is not merely political unity but 
a true union, of heart and soul, in other words social unity. 
Political unity is worth nothing, if it is not the expression of real 
union. It is as precarious as the unity between persons who without 
being friends become allies, as is now the case between Germany 
and Russia. Personally, I do not think that a permanent, union 
can be made to depend upon the satisfaction of mere material 
interests. Pacts may produce unity. But that unity can never ripen 
into union. A pact as a basis for a union is worse than usless. 
As its very nature indicates, a pact is separative in character. 
A pact cannot produce the desire to accommodate, it cannot instil 
the spiiit of sacrifice, nor can it bind the parties to the main 
objective. Instead of accommodating each other, parties to a pact 
strive to get, as much as possible, out of each other. Instead of 
sacrificing for the common cause, parties to the pact are constantly 
occupied in seeing that the sacrifice made by one is not used for the 
good of the other. Instead of fighting for the main Abjective, parties 
to the pact are forever engaged in seeing that in the struggle for 
reaching the goal the balance of power between the parties is not 
disturbed. Mr. Ren nan spoke the most profound truth when 
he said : 

"Community of interests is assuredly a powerful bond between 
men. But nevertheless can interests suffice to make a nation ? I do 
not believe it. Community of interests makes commercial treaties. 
There is a sentimental side to nationality ; it is at once body and 
soul ; a Zollverem is not a fatherland, " 

chap, vn] HINDU ALTERNATIVE To PAitisTAisf 187 

Equally striking is the view of James,Bryce, another well-known 
student of history. In the view of Bryce : 

"The permaiiance of an institution depends not merely on the 
material interests that support it, but on its conformity to the deep- 
rooted sentiment of the men for whom it has been made. When it 
draws to itself and provides a fitting expression for that sentiment, 
the sentiment becomes thereby not only more vocal but actually 
stronger, and in its turn imparts a fuller vitality to the institution." 

These observations of Bryce were made in connection with the 
foundation of the German Empire by Bismark who, according to 
Bryce, succeeded in creating a durable empire because it was based 
on a sentiment and that this sentiment was fostered 

" . . . . most of all by what we call the instinct or passion or 
nationality, the desire of a people already conscious of a moral and 
social unity, to see such unity expressed and realized under a single 
government, which shall give it a place and name among civilized 

Now what is it that produces tliis moral and social unity which 
gives pcrmanance and what is it that drives people to see such unity 
expressed and realized under a single government which shall give it 
a place and name among civilized states ? 

No one is more competent to answer this question than James 
Bryce. It was just such a question which he had to consider in 
discussing the vitality of the Holy Roman Empire as contrasted 
with the Roman Empire. If any Empire can be said to have succeeded 
in bringing about political unity among its diverse subjects it was the 
Roman Empire. Paraphrasing for the sake of brevity the language of 
Bryce : The gradual extension of Roman citizenship through the 
founding of colonies, first throughout Italy and then in the provinces ; 
the working of the equalized and equalizing Roman Law, the even 
pressure of the government on all subjects, the movements of 
population caused by commerce and the slave traffic, were steadily 
assimilating the various peoples. Emperors who were for the most 
part natives of the provinces cared little to cherish Italy or even 
after the days of the Antoninies, to conciliate Rome. It was their 
policy to keep open for every subject a career by whose freedom 
they had themselves risen to greatness. Annihilating distinctions of 

WHAT, itf tfot ^A&isTAtf [part itt 

tegal status among freemen, it completed the work which trade and 
literature and toleration to all beliefs but one were already performing^ 
No quarrels of race or religions disturbed that calm, for all national 
distinctions were becoming merged in the idea of a Common Empirel 

This unity produced by the Roman Empire was only a politica. 
unity. How long did this political unity last ? In the words 
of Eryce : 

" Scarcely had this slowly working influences brought about this 
unity, when other influences began to threaten it. New foes assailed 
the frontiers ; while the loosening of the structure within was shewn 
by the long struggles for power which followed the death or deposition 
of each successive emperor. In the period of anarchy after the fall 
of Valerian, generals were raised by their armies in every part of the 
Empire, and ruled great; provinces as monarchs apart, owning no 
allegiance to the possessor of the capital. The breaking-up of the 
western half of the Empire into separate kingdoms might have been 
anticipated by two hundred years, had the barbarian tribes on the 
borders been bolder, or had there not arisen in Diocletian a prince 
active and skillful enough to bind up the fragments before they had lost 
all cohesion, meeting altered conditions by new remedies. The policy 
he adopted of dividing and localizing authority recognized the fact 
that the weakened heart could no longer make its pulsations felt to 
the body's extremities. He parcelled out the supreme power among 
four monarchs, ruling as joint emperors in four capitals, and then 
sought to give it a factitious strength by surrounding it with an oriental 
pomp which his earlier predecessors would have scorned ................ 

The prerogative of Rome was menaced by the rivalry of Nicomedia, 
and the nearer greatness of Milan." 

It is therefore evident that political unity was not enough to 
give permanence and stability to the Roman Empire and as Bryce 
points out that "the breaking-up of the western half (of the Roman 
Empire) into separate kingdoms might have been anticipated by two 
hundred years had the barbarian tribes on the border been bolder, or 
had there not arisen in Diocletian a prince active and skillful enough 
to bind up the fragments before they had lost all cohesion, meeting 
altered conditions by new remedies." But the fact is that the Roman 
Empire which was tottering and breaking into bits and whose 
political unity was not enough to bind it together did last for several 


hundred years as one cohesive unit after it became the Holy Roman 
Empire. As Prof. Marvin points out* : 

"The unity of the Roman Empire was mainly political and military. 
It lasted for between four and five hundred years. The unity which 
supervened in the Catholic Church was religious and moral and 
endured for a thousand years/' 

The question is what made the Holy Roman Empire more stable 
than the Roman Empire could ever hope to be ? According to 
Bryce it was a common religion in the shape of Christianity and 
a common religious organization in the shape of the Christian Church 
which supplied the cement to the Holy Roman Empire and which 
was wanting in the Roman Empire. It was this cement which 
gave to the people of the Empire a moral and a social unity and made 
them see such unity expressed and realized under a single government. 

Speaking of the unifying effect of Christianity as a common 
religion Bryce says : 

" It is on religion that the inmost and deepest life of a nation rests. 
Because Divinity was divided, humanity had been divided, likewise ; 
the doctrine of the unity of God now enforced the unity of man, who had 
been created in his image. The first lesson of Christianity was love, a 
love that was to join in one body those whom suspicion and prejudice 
and pride of race had hitherto kept apart. There was thus formed by 
the new religion a community of the faithful, a Holy Empire, 
designed to gather all men into its bosom, and standing opposed to 
the manifold polytheisms of the older world, exactly as the universal 
sway of the Caesors was contrasted with the innumerable kingdoms 
and city republics that had gone before it "f 

If what Bryce has said regarding the instability of the Roman 
Empire and the comparatively greater stability of its successor, the 
Holy Roman Empire, has any lesson for India and if the reasoning 

* The unity of Western Civilization (4th Ed) page 27. 

j- The Christian Church did not play a passive part in the process of unification of the 
Roman Empire. It took a very active part in bringing- it about. " Seeing one institution 
after another falling to pieces around her, seeing how countries and cities were being- 
severed from each other by the erruption of strange tribes and the increasing difficulty 
of communication the Christian Church," says Bryce. *' strove to save religious fellowship 
by strengthening the ecclesiastical organization, by drawing tighter every bond of outward 
union. Necessities of faith were still more powerful. Truth, it was said, is one, and a* 
it must bind into one body all who hold it, so it is onlv by continuing in that body that 
they can preserve it. There is one Flook and one Shepherd." 

190 WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part m 

of Bryce, that the Roman Empire was unstable because it had 
nothing more than political unity to rely on, and that the Holy 
Roman Empire was more stable, because it rested on the secure 
foundation of moral and social unity, produced by the possession of 
a common faith, is a valid reasoning and embodies human experience, 
then it is obvious that there can be no possibility of a union between 
Hindus and Muslims. The cementing force of a common religion 
is wanting. From a spiritual point of view Hindus and Musalmans 
are not merely two classes or two sects such as Protestants and 
Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species. 
In this view, neither Hindu nor Muslim can be expected to recognize 
that humanity is an essential quality present in them both, and that 
they are not many but one and that the differences between them 
are no more than accidents. For them Divinity is divided and with 
the division of Divinity their humanity is divided and with the division 
of humanity they must remain divided. There is nothing to bring 
them in one bosom. 

Without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. 
If achieved it would be as precarious as a summer sappling, liable to be 
uprooted by the gust of any hostile wind. With mere political 
unity, India may be a state. But to be a state is not to be a nation 
and a state which is not a nation has small prospects of survival in 
the struggle for existence in these days when nationalism is the most 
dynamic force, seeking its ethical justification in the principle of 
self-determination for the distruction of all mixed states for which it is 


The Hindus say they have an alternative to Pakistan. Have the 
Muslims also an alternative to Pakistan ? The Hindus say yes, the 
Muslims say no. The Hindus believe that the Muslim proposal for 
Pakistan is only a bargaining manoeveur put forth with the object of 
making additions to the communal gains already secured under the 
Communal Award. The Muslims repudiate the suggestion. They 
say there is no equivalent to Pakistan and therefore they will have 
Pakistan and nothing but Pakistan. It does seem that the Musalmans 
are devoted to Pakistan and are determined to have nothing else and 
that the Hindus in hoping for an alternative are merely indulging in 
wishful thinking. But assuming that the Hindus are shrewd enough 
in divining what the Muslim game is, will the Hindus be ready to 
welcome the Muslim alternative to Pakistan ? The answer to 
the question must of course depend upon what the Muslim 
alternative is. 

What'is the Muslim alternative to Pakistan ? No one knows. 
Muslims, if they have any, have not disclosed it and perhaps will not 
disclose it till the day when the rival parties meet to revise and settle 
the terms on which Hindus and Muslims are to associate with each 
other in the future. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. It is 
therefore necessary for the Hindus to have some idea of the possible 
Muslim alternative to enable them to meet the shock of it ; for the 
alternative cannot be better than the Communal Award and is sure 
to be many degrees worse* 


In the absence of the exact alternative proposal one can only 
make a guess. Now one man's guess is as good as that of another 
and the party concerned has to choose on which of these he will rely. 
Among the likely guesses my guess is that the Muslims will put forth 
as their alternative some such proposal as the following : 

"That the future constitution of India shall provide : 

(i) That the Muslims shall have 50% representation in 
the Legislature, Central as well as Provincial, through 
separate electorates. 

(ii) That % of the Executive in the Centre as well as in 
the Provinces shall consist of Muslims. 

(iii) That in the Civil Service 50% of the post shall be 
assigned to the Muslims. 

(iv) That in the Fighting Forces the Muslim proportion 
shall be one half, both in the ranks and in the higher 

(v) That Muslims shall have 50% representation in all 
public bodies, such as councils and commissions, created for 
public purposes. 

(vi) That Muslims shall have 50% representation in all 
international organizations in which India will participate. 

(vii) That if the Prime Minister be a Hindu the Deputy 
Prime Minister shall be a Muslim. 

(viii) That if the Commander-in-Chief be a Hindu, the 
Deputy Commander-in-Chief shall be a Muslim. 

(ix) That no changes in the Provincial Boundaries shall 
be made except with the consent of 2/3rds of the Muslim 
members of the Legislature, 


(x) That no action or treaty against a Muslim country 
shall be valid unless the consent of 2/3 rds of the Muslim 
Members of the Legislature is obtained. 

(xi) That no law affecting the culture or religion or 
religious usage of Muslims shall be made except with 
the consent of 2/3 rds of the Muslim Members of the 

(xii) That the national language for India shall be 

(xiii) That no law prohibiting or restricting the slaughter 
of cows or the propagation of and conversion to Islam shall 
be valid unless it is passed with the consent of 2/3 rds of the 
Muslim Members of the Legislature. 

(xiv) That no change in the constitution shall be valid 
unless the majority required for effecting such changes 
also includes a 2/3rd majority of the Muslim Members of 
the Legislature." 

This guess of mine is not the result of imagination let loose, 
It is not the result of a desire to frighten the Hindus into an 
unwilling and hasty acceptance of Pakistan. If I may say so it is 
really an intelligent anticipation based upon available data coming 
from Muslim quarters. 

ATI indication of what the Muslim alternative is likely to be, is 
obtainable from the nature of the Constitutional Reforms which are 
contemplated for the Dominions of His Exalted Highness the Nizam 
of Hyderabad. 

The Hyderabad scheme of Reforms is a novel scheme. It rejects 
the scheme of communal representation obtaining in British India* 
In its place is substituted what is called Functional Representation 
i,e. representation by classes and by professions. The composition 


of the Legislature which is to consist of 70 members is to be as 
follows : 




Patidars 8 ~> 

Tenants 4 ) 

Western i ^ 

Oriental i ) 


Co-operative and 
Joint Stock ... i 

Organized Labour 


District Municipalities 

City Municipality 

Rural Boards 










Sarf-i-Khas 2 
Paigahs 3 

Peshkari i 
Salar Jung i 

Samasthans i 



Rural Arts and Crafts 

Backward Classes 

Minor Unreprsented Classes. 3 

Others ... ... 6 






Whether the scheme of functional representation will promote 

better harmony between the various classes and sections than 

communal representation does is more than doubtful. In addition to 

perpetuating existing social and religious divisions it may quite easily 

intensify class struggle by emphasizing class consciousness. The scheme 

appears innocuous but its real character will come out when every class 

will demand representation in proportion to its numbers. Be that as 

it may, functional representation is not the most significant feature 

of the Hyderabad scheme of Reforms. The most significant feature 

of the scheme is the proposed division of seats between Hindus and 

Musalmans in the new Hyderabad Legislature. Under the scheme 

as approved by H. E. H. the Nizam, communal representation is 

not altogether banished. It is retained along with functional 

representation. It is to operate through joint electorates. But 

there is to be equal representation for " the two majority 

communities " on every* elective body including the legislature and 

no candidate can succeed unless he secures 40 per cent, of the votes 

polled by members of his community. This principle of equal 

representation to Hindus and Muslims irrespective of their 

numberst is not only to apply to every elective body but it is to 

apply to both elected as well as nominated members of the body. 

In justification of this theory of equal representation it is stated 
that : 

" The importance of the Muslim community in the state, by 
virtue of its historical position and its status in the body politic, is 
so obvious that it cannot be reduced to the status of a minority 
in the Assembly." 

Quite recently there have appeared in the press the proposals 
formulated by one Mr. Mir Akbar Ali Khan calling himself the 

* Besides the Central Legislature there are to bo constituted under the Scheme of 
Reforms Bother popular bodies 'such as 2*anc7xiyat8, Rural Boards, Municipalities and Town 

| The distribution of population of Hyderabad State (Excluding Berar) is according to 
the census of 1931 as followed : 

Hindus Untouchables Muslims Christians Others Total 

96,99,615 24,73,230 15,34,666 1,51,382 5,77,255 1,44,36,148 

JSee Bombay Sentinel, June 22nd, 1940. Mr. Mir Akbar Ali Khan says that he discussed 
his proposals with Mr. Srinivas lyengar Ex-president of the Congress and the proposals 
published by him are really proposals as approved by Mr. lyengar. 


leader of the Nationalist Party as a means of settling the Hincfu 
Moslem problem in British India. They are as follows : 

(1) The future constitution of India must rest upon 
the broad foundation of adequate military defence of the 
country and upon making the people reasonably military 
minded. The Hindus must have the same military minded- 
ness as the Muslims. 

(2) The present moment offers a supreme opportunity 
for the two communities to ask for the defence of India being 
made over to them. The Indian Army must consist of an 
equal number of Hindus and Muslims and no regiment 
should be on a communal, as distinguished from regional 

(3) The Governments in the Provinces and at the 
Centre should be wholly National Governments composed 
of men who are reasonably military-minded. Hindu and 
Muslim Ministers should be equal in number in the Central 
as well as all provincial cabinets ; other important minorities 
might wherever necessary be given special representation. 
This- scheme will function most satisfactorily with joint 
electorates, but in the present temper of the country separate 
electorates might be continued. The Hindu Ministers must 
be elected by the Hindu members of the legislature and 
the Muslim Ministers by the Muslim members. 

(4) The Cabinet is to be removable only on an express 
vote of no-confidence, against the Cabinet as a whole, by 
2/3rds, which majority must be of Hindus and Muslims taken 

(5) The religion, language, script and personal law of 
each community should be safeguarded by a paramount 
constitutional check enabling the majority of members 
representing that community in the legislature placing a veto 
on any legislative or other measure affecting it. A similar 
veto must be provided against any measure designed or 
calculated to affect adversely the economic well-being of any 


(6) "&n. adequate communal representation in the 
services must be agreed to as a practical measure of justice^ 
in administration and in the distribution of patronage. > , 

If the proposals put forth by a Muslim leader of the Nation- 
alist Party in Hyderabad State is any indication showing in what 
direction the mind of the Muslims in British India is running then 
here is a third basis in support of the guess I have made. 


It is true that there was held in ])elhi in the month of April 
1940 a Conference of Muslims under the grandiloquent name of 
" The Azad Muslim Conference. " The Muslims who met in the 
Azad Conference were those who were opposed to the Muslim 
League as well as to the Nationalist Muslims. They were opposed 
to the Muslim League firstly, because of their hostility to Pakistan 
and secondly because like the League they did not want to depend 
upon the British Government for the protection of their rights.* 
They were also opposed to the Nationalist Musalmans (i. e. 
Congressites out and out ) because they \vere accused of indifference 
to the cultural and religious rights of the Muslims.f 

With all this the Azad Muslim Conference was hailed by the 
Hindus as a conference of friends. But the resolutions passed by 
the conference leave very little to choose between it and the League- 
Among the resolutions passed by the Azad Muslim Conference the 
following three bear directly upon the issue in question. 

The first of these runs as follows : 

" This conference, representative of Indian Muslims who desire to 
secure the fullest freedom of the country, consisting of delegates and 

*Mufti Kifayat Ullah a prominent member of the conference in the course of his speech is 
reported to have said: " They had to demonstrate that they were not behind any other 
community in the fight for freedom. He wished to declare in clear terms that they did not 
rely on the British Government for the protection of their rights. They would themselves 
chalk out the safeguards necessary for the protection of their religious rights and would 
fight out any party, however powerful, that would refuse to accept those safeguards, as they 
would fight the Oovernment for freedom (Prolonged cheers). Hindustan Times, April 

fSee he speeches of Maulana HafizUl Rehman and Dr. K. M. Ashraf in the same 
issue of tire Hiadfcfl Times. ... 


representatives of every province, after having given its fullest and 
most careful consideration to all the vital questions affecting the 
interest of the Muslim community and the country as a whole 
declares the following : 

"India will have geographical and political boundaries of an 
individual whole and as such is the common homeland of all the 
citizens irrespective of race or religion who are joint owners of its 
resources. All nooks and corners of the country are hearths and 
homes of Muslims who cherish the historic eminence of their religion 
and culture which are dearer to them than their lives. From the 
national point of view every Muslim is an Indian. The common 
lights of all residents of the country and their responsibilities in every 
walk of -life and in every sphere of human activity arc the same. 
Indian Muslim by virtue of these rights and responsibilities, is 
unquestionably an Indian national and in every part of the country 
is entitled to equal privileges with that of every Indian national in every 
sphere of governmental, economic and other national activities and 
in public services ; For that very reason Muslims own equal 
responsibilities with other Indians for striving and making sacrifices 
to achieve the country's independence. This is a self-evident 
proposition, the truth of which no right thinking Muslim will question. 
This conference declares unequivocally and with all emphasis at its 
command that the goal of Indian Muslims is complete independence 
along with protection of their religion and communal rights, and that 
they are anxious to attain this goal as early as possible. Inspired by 
this aim they have in the past made great sacrifices and are ever 
ready to make greater sacrifices. 

"The Conference unreservedly and strongly repudiates the baseless 
charge levelled against Indian Muslims by the agents of British 
Imperialism and others that they are an obstacle in the path of Indian 
freedom and emphatically declares that the Muslims are fully alive 
to their responsibilities and consider it inconsistent with their 
traditions and derogatory to their honour to lag behind others in the 
struggle for independence." 

By this Resolution they repudiated the scheme of Pakistan 
Their second Resolution was in the following terms : 

" This is the considered view of this conference that only that 
constitution for the future Government of India would be acceptable 
to the people of India which is framed by the Indians themselves 
elected by means of adult franchise. The constitution should fully 


safeguard all the legitimate interests of the Muslims in accordance 
with the recommendations of the Muslim Members of the Constituent 
Assembly. The representatives of other communities or of an outside 
power would have no right to interfere in the determination of these 

By this Resolution the Conference asserted that the safeguards 
for the Muslims must be determined by the Muslims alone. 

Their third Resolution was as under : 

" Whereas in the future constitution of India it would be essential, 
in order to ensure stability of government and preservation of 
security, that ever}" citizen and community should feel satisfied this 
conference considers it necessary that a scheme of safeguards as 
regards vital matters mentioned below should be prepared to the 
satisfaction of the Muslims. 

"This Conference appoints a board consisting of 27 persons. This 
board, after the fullest investigation, consultation and consideration, 
make its recommendations for submission to the next session of this 
Conference, so that the Conference may utilise the recommendations 
as a means of securing a permanent national settlement to the 
communal question. This recommendation should be submitted 
within two months. The matters referred to the board are the 
following : 

" i. The protection of Muslim culture, personal law and 
religious rights. 

" 2. Political rights of Muslims and their protection. 

" 3. The formation of future constitution of India to be non-unitary 
and federal, with absolutely essential and unavoidable powers for the 
Federal Government. 

" The provision of safegu u\ls for the economic, social and cultural 
rights of Muslims and for their share in public services. 

" The board will be empowered to fill up any vacancy in a suitable 
manner. The board will have the right to co-opt other members. 
It will be empowered also to consult other Muslim bodies and if it 
considers, necessary, any responsible organisation in the country. The 
27 members of the board will be nominated by the president. 

" The quorum for the meeting will be nine. 

" Since the safeguards of the communal rights of different 
communities will be determined in the constituent assembly referred 


to in the resolution which this conference has passed^ this conference 
considers it necessary to declare that Muslim members of this 
constituent assembly will be elected by Muslims themselves. " 

We must await the Report of this Board to know what 
safeguards the Azad Muslim Conference will devise for the safety and 
protection of Muslims. But there appears no reason to hope that 
they will not be in favour of what I have guessed to be the likely 
alternative of the League for Pakistan. For it cannot be over- 
looked that the Azad Muslim Conference was a body of Muslims 
who were not only opposed to the Muslim League but were equally 
opposed to the Nationalist Muslims. There is therefore no ground 
to trust that they will be more merciful to the Hindus than the 
League has been or will be. 

Suppose my guess turns out to be correct it would be 
interesting to know what the Hindus will have to say in reply. 
Should they prefer such an alternative to Pakistan ? Or should they 
rather prefer Pakistan to such an alternative ? Those are questions 
which I must leave the Hindus and their leaders to answer. All 
I would like to say in this connection is that the Hindus before 
determining their attitude towards this question should note certain 
important considerations. In particular they should note that there 
is a difference between Macht Politic and Gravamin Politic ; that 
there is a difference between communitas communitatum and 
a nation of nations ; that there is a difference between safeguards 
to allay apprehensions of the weak and contrivances to satisfy the 
ambition for power by the strong : that there is a difference between 
providing safeguards and handing over the country. Further they 
should also note that what may with safety be conceded to 
Gravamin Politic may not be conceded to Macht Politic : What 
may be conceded with safety to a community may not be conceded 
to a nation and what may be conceded with safety to the weak to be 
used as a weapon of defence may not be conceded to the strong who 
may use it as a weapon of attack. 

These are important considerations and if the Hindus ^overlook 
them they will do so at their peril. For the Muslim alternative is 
really a frightful and dangerous alternative. 


Hindus who will not yield to the demand of the Muslims for the 
division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan and would insist upon 
maintaining the geographical unity of India without counting the cost 
will do well to study the fate that has befallen other countries who 
like India were a nation of nations. 

It is not necessary to review the history of all such countries. 
It is enough to recount here the story of two, Turkey and 

To begin with Turkey. The emergence of the Turks in history 
was due to the fact that they were driven away by the Mongols from 
their home in Central Asia, somewhere between 1230-40 A. D. 
which led them to settle in North- West Anatolia. Their career as 
the builders of the Turkish Empire began in 1326 with the conquest 
of Brusa. In 1360-61 they conquered Thrace from the Aegean to 
the Black Sea; in 1361-62 the Byzantine Government of Constan- 
tinople accepted their supremacy. In 1369 Bulgaria followed suit. 
In 1371-72 Macedonia was conquered. In 1373 Constantinople 
definitely accepted Ottoman Sovereignty. In 1389 Servia was 
conquered. In 1430 Salonia and 1453 Constantinople, in 1461 
Trebizond, in 1465 Quraman, in 1475 Kaffa and Tana were. annexed 



one after another. After a short lull, they conquered Mosul in 
1514, Syria, Egypt, the Hiaz and theYaman in 1516-17 and Belgrade 
in 1521. This was followed in 1526 by a victory over the Hungarians 
at Mohacz. In 1554 took place the first conquest of Bagdad and in 
1639 second conquest of Bagdad. Twice they laid seige to Vcinna, 
first in 1529 and again in 1683 with a view to extend their conquest 
beyond. But on both occasions they were repulsed with the result 
that their expansion in Europe was completely checked for ever. 
Still the countries they conquered between 1326 and 1683 formed 
a vast empire. A few of these territories the Turks had lost to 
their enemies thereafter, but taking the extent of the Turkish Empire 
as it stood in 1789 on the eve of the French Revolution it comprised 
(i) the Balkans, south of the Danub, (2) Asia Minor, the Levant 
and the neighbouring islands (i.e. Cyprus), (3) Syria and Palestine, 
(4) Egypt and (5) North Africa from Kgypt to Morocco. 

The tale of the disruption of the Turkish Empire is easily told. 
The first to break away de facto if not de jure was Egypt in 1769. 
The next were the Christians in the Balkans. Bessarabia was taken by 
Russia in 1812 after a war with Turkey. In 1812 Serbia rebelled with 
the aid of Russia and the Turks were obliged to place Serbia under 
a separate Government. In 1829 similar concessions were granted 
to two other Danubian Provinces, Moldavia and Wallachia. As a 
result of the Greek war of Independence which lasted between 1822-29 
Greece was completely freed from Turkish rule and Greek independ- 
ence was recognised by the Powers in 1832. Between 1875-77 there 
was turmoil amogst the Balkans. There was a revolt in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and the Bulgarians resorted to atrocities against the Turks, 
to which the Turks replied with atrocities in equal measure. As 
a result, Serbia and Montenegro declared war on Turkey and so did 
Russia. By the Treaty of Berlin Bulgaria was given self- 
government under Turkey and Eastern Rumania was to be ruled 
by Turkey under a Christian Governor. Russia gained Kars and 
Batoum. Dobrudja was given to Rumania. Bosnia and Herzegovina 
were assigned to Austria for administration and England occupied 
Cyprus. In 1881 Greece gained Thessaly and France occupied 
Tunis. In 1885 Bulgaria and Eastern Roumalia were united into 
one state, 


The story of the growth and decline of the Turkish Empire 
upto 1906 has been very graphically described by Mr. Lane Poole 
in the following words* : 

" In its old extent, when the Porte ruled not merely the 
narrow territory now called Turkey in Europe, but Greece, 
Bulgaria and Eastern Rumalia, Rumania, Serbia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, with the Crimea and a portion of Southern 
Russia, Egypt, Syria, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers and numerous 
islands in the Mediterranean, not counting the vast but mainly 
desert tract of Arabia, the total population (at the present time) 
would be over fifty millions, or nearly twice that of Europe without 
Russia. One by one her provinces have been taken away. 
Algiers and Tunis have been incorporated with France, and 
thus 175,000 square miles and five millions of inhabitants 
have transferred their alleigiance. Egypt is practically indepen- 
dent, and this means a loss of 500,000 miles and over six 
millions of inhabitants. Asiatic Turkey alone has suffered 
comparatively little diminution. This forms the bulk of her 
present dominions, and comprises about 680,000 square miles, 
and over sixteen millions of population. In Europe her losses 
have been almost as severe as in Africa where Tripoli alone 
remains to her. Serbia and Bosnia are administered by 
Austria and thereby nearly 40,000 miles and three and a half 
millions of peoples have become Austrian subjects. \V r allachia 
and Moldavia are united in the independent kingdom of 
Rumania, diminishing the extent of Turkey by 46,000 miles 
and over five millions of inhabitants. Bulgaria is a dependent 
state over which the Porte has no real control and Eastern 
Rumalia has lately de facto become part of Bulgaria and the 
two contain nearly 40,000 square miles, and three millions of 
inhabitants. The kingdom of Greece with its 25,000 miles 
and two million population has long been separated from its 
parent. In Europe where the Turkish territory once extended 
to 230,000 miles, with a population of nearly 20 millions, it 
now reaches only the total of 66 thousand miles and a population 

"Turkey pages 363-64 


of four and a half millions, it has lost nearly three fourths of its 
land, and about the same proportion of its people/' 

Such was the condition of Turkey in 1907. What has befallen 
her since then is unfortunately the worst part of her story. In 1908 
taking advantage of the Revolution brought about by the young 
Tiirks, Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bulgaria 
declared her in dependece. In IQII Italy took possession of Tripoli 
and in 1912 France occupied Morocco. Encouraged by the 
successful attack of Italy in 1912 Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and 
Montenegro formed themselves into a Balkan League and declared 
war on Turkey. In this war known as the first Balkan \Var Turkey 
was completely defeated. By the treaty of London (1913) the 
Turkish territory in Europe was reduced to a narrow strip round 
Constantinople. But the treaty could not take effect because the 
victors could not agree on the distribution of the spoils of victory. 
In 1913 Bulgaria declared war on the rest of the Balkan League 
and Rumania declared war on Bulgaria in the hope of extending 
her territory. Turkey also did the same. By the Treaty of 
Bukharest (1913) which ended the second Balkan War Turkey 
recovered Adrianople and got Thrace from Bulgaria. Serbia 
obtained Northern Macedonia and Greece obtained Southern 
Macedonia (including Salonika), while Montenegro enlarged her 
territory at the expense of Turkey. By 1914 when the Great 
European War came on, the Balkans had won their independence 
from Turkey and the area in Europe that remained under the Turkish 
Empire was indeed a very small area round about Constantinople 
and her possessions in Asia. So far as the African Continent 
is concerned, the Sultan's power over Egypt and the rest of 
North Africa was only nominal ; for the European powers had 
established real control therein. In the Great War of 1914 the 
overthrow of Turkey was complete. All the provinces from the 
Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf were overrun, and the great cities 
of Bagdad, Jerusalem, Damascus and Alleppo were captured. In 
Europe the allied troops occupied Constantinople. The Treaty of 
Severes which brought the War with Turkey to a close sought to 
deprive her of all her outlying provinces and even of the fertile 
plains of Asia Minor. Greek claim for territory was generously 


allowed at the expense of Turkey in Macedonia, Thrace and Asia 
Minor and Italy was to receive Adalia and a large tract in the 
South. Turkey was to be deprived of all her Arab Provinces in Asia, 
Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Hedjaz and Nejd. There was left to Turkey 
only the capital, Constantinople and separated from this city, by 
a " neutral zone of the straits, " part of the barren plateau of 
Anatolia. The Treaty though accepted by the Sultan was fiercely 
attacked by the Nationalist Party under Kemal Pasha. When the 
Greeks advanced to occupy their new territory they were attacked 
and decisively beaten. At the end of the war with Greece which 
went on from 1920 to 1922 the Turks had reoccupied Smyrna. As the 
alJies were not prepared to send armies to help the Greeks, they 
were forced to come to terms with the Nationalist Turks. At the 
Conference at Mudiania the Greeks agreed to revise the terms of the 
Treaty of Severes which was done by the Treaty of Lausaune in 
1923 and which granted the demands of Turkey except in Western 
Thrace. The rest of the Treaty of Severes was accepted by the 
Turks which meant the loss of her Arab Provinces in Asia. Thus 
before the War of 1914 Turkey had lost all her Provinces in Europe. 
After the War she lost her Provinces in Asia. As a result of this 
dismemberment of the old Turkish Empire, what now remains of it 
is the small state called the Republic of Turkey with an area which 
is a minute fraction of the old Empire.* 


Take the case of Czechoslovakia. It is the creation of the 
Treaty of Trainon which followed the European "War of 1914. 
None of the peace treaties was more drastic in its terms than the 
Treaty of Trainon. Says Prof. Mackartney, " By it Hungary 
was not so much mutilated as dismembered. Even if we exclude 
Croatia, Slavonia, which had stood only in a federal relationship to 
the other lands of the Holy Crown although one of eight hundred 
years 7 standing Hungary proper was reduced to less than one 

*The area of Turkey is 294,492 square miles exclusive of 3,708 square miles of lakea 
and awamps. The area of Turkey in Europe is only 9,257 square miles. 

206 WHAT, IF NOT PAlUSTAtf [part III 

third ( 32*6 per cent.) of her prewar area, and a little over two 
fifth (41*6 percent.) of her population. Territories and peoples 
formerly Hungarian were distributed among no less than seven 
states. " Of these states, there was one which did not exist before. 
It was a new creation. That was the state of Czechoslovakia. 

The area of the Republic of Czechoslovakia was 54,244 square 
miles and the population was about 13,613,172. It included the 
territories formerly known as Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and 
Ruthenia. It was a composite state which included in its bosom 
three principal nationalities, (i) Czechs occupying Bohemia and 
Moravia (ii) Slovaks, occupying Slovakia and (iii) Ruthcnians in 
occupation of Ruthenia. 

Czechoslovakia proved to be a very short livcd-state. It lived 
exactly for two decades. On the I5th March 1939 it perished or 
rather was destroyed as an independent state. It became a protec- 
torate of Germany. The circumstances attending its expiry were 
of a very bewildering nature. Her death was brought about by the 
very powers which had given it birth. By signing the Munich 
Pact on 3Oth September 1938 of which the Protectorate was 
an inevitable consequence, Great Britain, France and Italy assisted 
Germany, their former enemy of the Great "War, to conquer 
Czechoslovakia, their former ally. All the work of the Czechs of the 
past century to gain freedom had been cancelled out. They were 
once more to be the slaves of thier former German overlords. 


What are the reasons for the disruption of Turkey ? 

Lord Eversely in his Turkish Empire* has attempted to give 
reasons for the decay of Turkey, some internal, some external. 
Among the internal causes there were two. First the degeneracy 
of the Othman dynasty. The supreme power fell into the hands 
either of the Vaziers of the Sultans or more often in the 

* See abridgment by Sheikh Abdur Rashid. 


hands of women of the harem of the Sultan. The harem was 
always in antagonism to the official administration of the Porte, 
which ostensibly carried on the administration of the state under 
the direction of the Sultan. The harem was the centre from which 
corruption spread throughout the Turkish Empire, as officials of 
every degree, from the highest to the lowest, found it expedient to 
secure their interests with its inmates by heavy bribes, with the 
result that the sale of offices civil and military became universal. The 
second main cause of the decadence of the Turkish Empire was the 
deterioration of its armies due to two causes. During the last 300 
years the army had lost the elan and the daring by which the 
Ottomans won their many victories in the early period of their 
career. The loss of this elan and daring by the Turkish Army was 
due to the composition of army, recruitment to which was restricted 
to Turks and Arabs and also to the diminution of opportunities of 
plunder and the hope of acquiring lands for distribution among the 
soldiers as an incentive to victory and valour in the latter period 
when the Empire was on the defensive and when it was no longer 
a question of making fresh conquests, but of retaining what had 
already been won. 

As an external cause of the disruption of Turkey the chief one 
is the rapacity of the European nations. 

All this of course is true. But this analysis omits to take note 
of the true cause. The true and the principal cause of the 
disruption of Turkey was underminded by the growth of the 
spirit of nationalism among its subject peoples. The Greek 
revolt, the revolt of the Serbs, Bulgarians and other Balkans against 
the Turkish authority was no doubt represented as a conflict between 
Christianity and Islam. That is one way of looking at it. But 
only a superficial way of looking at it. These revolts, were simply 
the manifestations of the spirit of nationalism by which they 
were generated. These revolts had no doubt for their immediate 
causes Turkish misrule, Christian antipathy to Islam and the 
machinations of European nations. But all this is a superficial way 
of looking at the phenomenon. The real motive force was the 
spirit of nationalism by which they were actuated and their revolts 
were only a manifestation of this inner urge brought on by nationalism. 

208 WHAT, IF NOT PAKISTAN [part ttl 

That it was nationalism which had brought about the disruption of 
Turkey is proved by the revolt of the Arabs in the last war and their 
will to be independent. Here there was no conflict between Islam 
and Christianity. Nor there was the relationship between the two that 
of the oppressor and the oppressed. Yet, the Arab claimed to be 
freed from the Turkish Empire. Why ? Because he was moved 
by Arab nationalism and preferred to be an Arab nationalist to 
being a Turkish subject. 

What is thq cause of the destruction of Czechoslovakia ? 

The general impression is that it was the result of German 
aggression. To some extent that is true. But it is not the whole 
truth. If Germany was the only enemy of Czechoslovakia all that 
she would have lost was the fringe of her borderland which was 
inhabited by the Sudetan Germans. German aggression need have 
cost her nothing more. Really speaking the destruction of 
Czechoslovakia was brought about by an enemy within her own 
borders. That enemy was the intransigent nationalism of the 
Slovaks who were out to break up the unity of the state and secure 
the independence of Slovakia. 

The union of the Slovaks with the Czechs as units of a single 
state was based upon certain assumptions. First the two were 
believed to be so closely akin as to be one people, and that the 
Slovaks were only a branch of Czechoslo vales. Second that the two 
spoke a single ' Czechoslovak ' language. Third there was no separate 
Slovak national consciousness. Nobody examined these assumptions 
at the time, because the Slovaks themselves desired this union, 
expressing their wish in 1918 by formal declaration of their represent- 
atives at the Peace Conference. This was of course a superficial 
and hasty view of the matter. As Prof. Mackartney points out 

" the central political fact which emerges from the consideration 

of this history (of the relations between the Czechs and Slovaks) for 
the purposes of the present age is the final crystallization of a Slovak 

national consciousness ". The genuine and uncompromising 

believers in a single indivisible Czechoslovak language and people 
ware certainly never so large, at least in Slovakia, as they were made 
to appear. Today they have dwindled to a mere handful, under 


influence of actual experience of the considerable differences which 
exist between the Czechs and the Slovaks. At present Slovak is in 
practice recognized by the Czechs themselves as the official language 
of Slovakia The political and national resistance has been no less 
tenacious and to-day the name of ' Czechoslovakia ' is practically 
confined to official documents and to literature issued for the benefit 
of foreigners. During many weeks in the country I only remember 
hearing one person use the term for herself ; this was a half-German, 
half-Hungarian girl, who used it in a purely political sense, meaning 
that she thought irredentism futile. No Czech and no Slovak feels or 
calls himself, when speaking naturally, anything but a Czech or 
a Slovak as the case may be." 

This national conciousness of the Slovaks, which was always 
alive began to burst forth on seeing that the Sudetan Germans 
had made certain demands on Czechoslovakia for autonomy. 
The Germans sought to achieve their objective by the applica- 
tion of gangster morality to international politics, saying " Give 
us what we ask or we shall burst up your shop." The Slovaks 
followed suit by making their demands for autonomy but with 
a different face. They did not resort to gangster methods and 
modulated their demands to autonomy only. They had eschewed all 
idea of independence and in the Proclamation issued on October 8 
by Dr. Tiso, the leading man in the autonomist movement in Slovakia, 
it was said " We shall proceed in the spirit of our motto, for God 
and the Nation, in a Christian and national spirit." Believing in their 
bond- fides and desiring to give no room to the Gravaminpolitik of 
which the Slovaks were making full use to disturb the friendly 
relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks, the National Assembly 
in Prague passed an Act in November 1938 immediately after the 
Munich Pact called the " Constitutional Act on the Autonomy of 
Slovakia. " Its provisions were of a far reaching character. There 
was to be a separate Parliament for Slovakia and this Parliament was 
to decide the Constitution of Slovakia within the framework of the 
legal system of the Czechoslovak Republic. An alteration in the 
territory of Slovakia was to be with the consent of the two-third 
majority in the Slovak Parliament. The consent of the Slovak 
Parliament was made necessary for international treaties which 


exclusively concerned Slovakia- Officials of the Central State admi- 
nistration in Slovakia were to be primarily Slovaks. Proportional 
representation of Slovakia was guaranteed in all central institutions, 
councils, commissions and other organizations. Similarly, Slovakia 
was to be proportionally represented on all international organizations 
in which the Czechoslovak Republic was called upon to participate. 
Slovak soldiers, in peace time, were to be stationed in Slovakia as far 
as possible. As far as legislative authority was concerned all subjects 
which were strictly of common concern were assigned to the 
Parliament of Czechoslovakia. By way of guaranteeing these rights 
to the Slovaks, the Constitution Act provided that the decision of the 
National Assembly to make constitutional changes shall be valid 
only if the majority constitutionally required for such changes includes 
also a proportionate majority of the members of the National 
Assembly elected in Slovakia. Similarly, the election of a President 
of the Republic required the consent not merely of the constitutionally 
determined majority of the Members of the Parliament, but also of 
a proportionate majority of the Slovak Members. Further to 
emphasize that the Central Government must enjoy the confidence 
of the Slovaks it was provided by the Constitution that one-third 
of the Slovak Members of the Parliament may propose a motion 
of * No Confidence/ 

These constitutional changes introduced a hyphen between the 
Czechs and the Slovaks which did not exist before much against the 
will of the Czechs. But it was done in the hope that, once the 
relatively minor quarrels between the two \vere got out of the way, 
the very nationalism of the Slovaks was more likely to bring them 
closer to the Czechs than otherwise. With the constitutional 
changes guaranteeing an independent status to Slovakia and the fact 
that the status so guaranteed could not be changed without the 
consent of the Slovaks themselves, there was no question of the Slovaks 
ever losing their national identity through submergence by the Czechs. 
The autonomy however introduced a hyphen which did not exist 
before. It separated the cultural waters and saved the Slovaks from 
losing their colour. 

The first Slovak Parliament elected under the new constitution 
was opened on January 18, 1939 a$d Dr, Martin Sokol, the President 


of the Parliament declared "The period of the Slovak's struggle 
for freedom is ended. Now begins the period of national rebirth ". 
Other speeches made on the occasion indicated that now that 
Slovakia had its autonomy the Slovaks would never feel animosity 
towards the Czechs again and that both wonld loyally abide by the 
Czecho-Slovak State. 

But not even a month had elapsed since the inauguration of 
the Slovak Parliament before the Slovak politicians had begun their 
battle against the hyphen and for complete separation. They made 
excited speeches in which they attacked the Czechs, talked about 
Czech oppression, and demanded a completely independent Slovakia. 
By the beginning of March the various forms of separatism in 
Slovakia were seriously threatening the integrity of the Czecho- 
slovak State. On March 9 it was learnt that Tiso the Slovak 
Premier had decided to proclaim the independence of Slovakia. 
On the loth in anticipation of such an act troops were moved in 
Slovakia and Tiso, the Prime Minister, was dismissed along with 
other Slovak Ministers by the President of the Republic, Dr. Hacha. 
On the next day Tiso, supposed to be under police supervision, 
telephoned to Berlin aud asked for help. On Monday Tiso and 
Hitler met and had an hour and a half's talk in Berlin. Immediately 
after the talk with Hitler Tiso got on the phone to Prague and 
passed on the German orders. 

They were : 

(i) All Czech troops to be withdrawn from Slovakia ; 

(ii) Slovakia to be an independent state under German 
protection ; 

(iii) The Slovak Parliament to be summoned by President 
Hacha to hear the proclamation of independence. 

There was nothing that President Hacha and the Prague 
Government could do except say yes, for they knew very well that 
dozens of divisions of German troops were massed round the 
defenceless frontiers of Czechoslovakia ready to march in at any 
moment if the demands made by Germany in the interest of and at 
the instance of Slovakia were refused. Thus ended the new state of 



"What is the lesson to be drawn from the story of these two 
countries ? 

There is some difference as to how the matters should be put. 
Mr. Sydney Brooks would say that the cause of these wars of 
disruption is nationalism, which according to him is the enemy of the 
universal peace. Mr. Norman Angell on the other hand would say 
it is not nationalism but the threat to nationalism which is the cause. 
To Mr. Robertson nationalism is an irrational instinct if not 
a positive hallucination and the sooner humanity got rid of it the 
better for all. 

In whatever way the matter is put and howsoever ardently one 
may wish for the elimination of nationalism, the lesson to be drawn 
is quite clear. That nationalism is a fact which can neither be 
eluded nor denied. Whether one calls it an irrational instinct or 
a positive hallucination, the fact remains that it is a potent force 
which has a dynamic power to disrupt empires. Whether nationalism 
is the cause or the threat to nationalism is the cause they are differences 
of emphasis only. The real thing is to recognize as does Mr. Toynbee 
that " nationalism is strong enough to produce war inspite of us. 
It has terribly proved itself to be no outworn creed, but a vital 
force to be reckoned with." As was pointed out by him "the right 
reading of nationality has become an affair of life and death. " It 
was not only so for Europe. It was so for Turkey. It was so for 
Czechoslovakia. And what was a question of life and death to them 
could not but be one of life and death to India. Prof. Toynbee pleaded 
of as was done before him, by Gizot, the recognition of nationality as 
the necessary foundation of European peace. Could India ignore to 
recognize this plea ? If she does, she will be acting so at her own peril. 
That nationalism is a disruptive force is not the only lesson to be 
learnt from the history of these two countries. Their experience 
embodies much else of equal if not of greater significance. What 
that is, will be evident if certain facts are recalled to memory. 

The Turks were by no means as illiberal as they are painted. 
They allowed their minorities a large measure of autonomy. The 
Turks had gone far towards solving the problem of how people of 

chap. IX] LfeSSONS FkOM ABfeOAD 

different communities with different social heritages are to live iri 
harmony together when they are geographically intermingled. The 
Ottoman Empire had accorded, as a matter of course to the 
Non-Muslim and Non-Turkish communities within its frontiers 
a degree of territorial as well as cultural autonomy which had 
never been dreamt of in the political philosophy of the West. 
Ought riot the Christian subjects to have been satisfied with this ? 
Say what one may, the nationalism of Christaiii minorities was not 
satisfied with this local autonomy. It fought for complete freedom 
and in that fight Turkey was slit open. 

The Turks were bound to the Arabs by the tic of religion . 
The religious tie of Islam is the strongest known to humanity. 
No social confederacy can claim to rival the Islamic brotherhood 
in point of solidarity. Add to this the fact that while the Turk 
treated his Christian subjects as his inferior he acknowledged the 
Arab as his equal. In the Ottoman Army all non-Muslims were 
excluded. But the Arab soldiers and officers served side by side 
with Turks and Kurds. The Arab officer class, educated in Turkish 
schools, served in military and civil capacities on the same terms 
as the Turks. There was no derogating distinction between the 
Turk and the Arab and there was nothing to prevent the Arab 
from rising to the highest rank in the Ottoman services. Not only 
politically but even socially the Arab was treated as his equal by the 
Turk and Arabs married Turkish wives and Turks married Arab 
wives. Ought not the Arabs to have been satisfied with this 
Islamic brotherhood of Arabs and Turks based on fraternity, 
liberty and equality ? Say what one may, the Arabs were not 
satisfied. Arab nationalism broke the bonds of Islam and fought 
against his fellow Muslim, the Turk, for its independence. It won 
but Turkey was completely dismantled. 

As to Czechoslovakia, she began with the recognition 
that both the Czechs and the Slovaks were one people. 
"Within a few years the Slovaks claimed to be a separate nation. 
They would not even admit that they were a branch of the same 
stock as the Czechs. Their nationalism compelled the Czechs to 
recognize the fact that they were a distnict people. The Czechs 
sought to pacify the nationalism of t-he Slovaks by drawing a hyphen 

14 WHAtf, IF NOl* FAltlSf AJ* [part 211 

as a mark indicating distinctness. In place of Czechoslovakia they 
agreed to have Czecho Slovakia* But even with the hyphen the 
Slovak nationalism remained non-content. The act of antonomy 
was both a hyphen separating them from the Czechs as well as a link 
joining them with the Czechs. The hyphen as making separation was 
welcome to the Slovaks but as making a link with the Czechs was 
very irksome to them. The Slovaks accepted the autonomy with 
its hyphen with great relief and promised to be content and loyal 
to the State. But evidently this was only a matter of strategy. 
They sought the autonomy with the hyphen which had the effect of 
separating them and not as an ultimate end. They accepted it 
because they thought that they could use it as a vantage ground for 
destroying the hyphen which was their main aim. The nationalism of 
the Slovaks was not content with a hyphen. It wanted a bar in 
place of the hyphen. Immediately the hyphen was introduced they 
began their battle to replace the hyphen between the Czechs and 
the Slovaks by a bar. They did not care what means they should 
employ. Their nationalism was so wrong-headed and so intense that 
when they failed they did not hesitate to call the aid of the Germans. 

Thus a deeper study of the disruption of Turkey and 
Czchoslovakia shows that neither local autonomy nor the bond of 
religion is sufficient to withstand the force of nationalism, once it 
is set on the go. 

This is a lesson which the Hindus will do well to grasp. They 
should ask themselves if the Greek, Balkan and Arab nationalism 
has blown up the Turkish State and if Slovak nationalism has 
caused the dismantling of Czechoslovakia what is there to prevent 
Muslim nationalism from disrupting the Indian State ? If experience 
of other countries teaches that this is the inevitable consequence 
of pent-up nationalism, why not profit by their experience and 
avoid the catastrophe by agreeing to divide India into Pakistan and 
Hindustan ? Let the Hindus take the warning that if they refuse 
to divide India into two before they launch on their career as a free 
people they will be sailing in those shoal waters in which Turkey, 
Czechoslovakia and many others have foundered. If they wish to 
avoid ship- wreck in mid-ocean they must lighten the draught by 
throwing overboard all superfluous cargo. They will ease the 


course of their voyage considerably if they to use the language 
of Prof. Toynbee reconcile themselves to making jetsam of less 
cherished and more combustible cargo. 


Will the Hindus really lose if they agree to divide India into 
two, Pakistan and Hindustan ? 

With regard to Czechoslovakia it is instructive to note the real 
feelings of its Government on the loss of their territory caused by the 
Munich Pact. They were well expressed by the Prime Minister of 
Czechoslovakia in his message to the people of Czechoslovakia. 
In it he said : 

" Citizens and soldiers I am living through the hardest hour 

of my life ; I am canying out tho most painful task, in comparison 
with which death would be easy. But precisely because I have 
fought and because I know under what conditions a war is won, 
I must tell you frankly .... that the forces opposed to us at this 
moment compel us to recognize their superior strength and to act 

" In Munich four European Great Powers met and decided to 
demand of us the acceptance of new frontiers, according to which the 
German areas of our State would be taken away. We had the choice 
between desperate and hopeless defence, which would have meant 
the sacrifice not only of the adult generation bvit also of women and 
children, and the acceptance of conditions which in their ruthlessiiess, 
and because they were imposed by pressure without war, have no 
parallel in history. We desire J to make a contribution to peace; 
we would gladly have made it. But not by any means in the way 
it has been forced upon us. 

" But we were abandoned, and were alone .... Deeply moved, all 
your leaders considered, together with the army and the President 
of the Republic, all the possibilities which remained. They recognized 
that in choosing between narrower frontiers and the death of the 
nation it was their sacred duty to save the life of our people, so that 
we may not emerge weakened from these terrible times, and so that 
we may remain certain that our ttation will gather itself together 


again, as it has done so often in the past. Let us all see that our 
State re-establishes itself soundly within its new frontiers, and that 
its population is assured of a new life of peace and fruitful labour. 
With your help we shall succeed. We rely upon you, and you have 
confidence in us." 

It is evident that the Czechs refused to be led by the force of 
historic sentiment. They were ready to have narrower frontiers and 
a smaller Czechoslovakia to the ultimate destruction of their people. 

With regard to Turkey the prevalent view was the one that was 
expressed in 1853 t>y the Czar Nicholas I, during a conversation with 
the British Ambassadoi in St. Petersburg in which he said "We 

have on our hands a sick man a very sick man He may 

suddenly die upon our hands." From that day the imminent 
decease of Turkey, the sick man of Europe, was awaited by all his 
neighbours. The shedding of the territories was considered as the 
convulsions of a dying man who is alleged to have breathed his last 
by affixing his signature to the treaty of Severs. 

Is this really a correct view to take of Turkey in the process of 
dissoultion ? It is instructive to note the comments of Arnold 
Toynbee on this view. Referring to the Czar's description of Turkey 
as the sick man who may suddenly die, he says : 

" In this second and more sensational part of his diagnosis Czar 
Nicholas went astray because he did not understand the nature of the 
symptoms. If a person totally ignorant of natural history stumbled 
upon a snake in course of shedding its skin, he would pronounce 
dogmatically that the creature could not possibly recover. He would 
point out that when a man (or other mammal) has the misfortune to 
lose his skin, he is never known to survive. Yet while it is perfectly 
true that the leopard cannot change his spots nor the Ethiopian his 
skin, a wider study would have informed our amateur naturalist that 
a snake can do both and does both habitually. Doubtless, even for 
the snake, the process is awkward and uncomfortable. He becomes 
temporarily torpid, and in this condition he is dangerously at the 
mercy of his enemies. Yet, if he escapes the kites and crows until 
his metamorphosis is complete, he not only recovers his health but 
renews his youth with the replacement of his mortal coils. This is 
the recent experience of the Turk, and "moulting snake" is better 
simile than "Sick man" for a description of his di3temper/' 


In this view the loss of her possessions by Turkey is the removal 
of an anomalous excrescence and the gain of a new skin. Turkey 
is certainly homogeneous and she has no fear of any disruption from 

Pakistan is an anomalous excrescence on Hindustan and 
Hindustan is an anomalous excrescence on Pakistan. Tied together 
they will make India the sickman of Asia. Pakistan and Hindustan 
put together make a most heterogeneous Unit. It is obvious that if 
Pakistan has the demerit of cutting away parts of India it has also 
one merit namely of introducing homogeneity. 

Severed into two, each becomes a more homogeneous Unit. This 
homogeneity of each is obvious enough. Each has a cultural unity. 
Each has a religious unity. Pakistan has a linguistic unity. If 
there is 110 such unity in Hindustan it is possible to have it without 
any controversy as to whether the common language should be 
Hindustani, Hindi or Urdu. Separated, each can become a strong 
and well-knit state. India needs a strong Central Government. But 
it cannot have it so long Pakistan remains apart of India. Compare the 
structure of the Federal Government as embodied in the Government 
of India Act, 1935 and it will be found that the Central Government 
as constituted under it is an effete ramshakle thing with very little life 
in it.* As has already been pointed out this weakening of the 
Central Government is brought about by the desire of Muslim 
Provinces to be independent of the authority of the Central Government 
on the ground that the Central Government is bound to be 
predominantly Hindu in character and composition. \Vhen Pakistan 
comes into being these considerations can have no force. Hindustan 
can then have a strong Central Government a homogeneous population 
which are necessary elements and neither of which will be secured 
unless there is severance of Pakistan from Hindustan. 

For furtlior discussion cm this topic see my Tract ou Federation vs. Freedom. 


The Hindu- Mosl&n Problem IMS two aspects to it- In its 
first aspect tJie problem tJmt presents itself is the problem 
of two separate communities facing each other and seeking 
adjustment of their respective rights and privileges. In its 
otJier aspect the $)roblem is ifie problem of the reflex influences 
which this separation and conflict produces upon each of tfiem* 
In the course of the foregoing discussion we have looked at the 
%>roject of Pakistan in relation to th,e first of th>e two aspects of 
tJie Hindu- Moslem problem- We 7tave not examined the jwqject 
of Pakistan in relation to tJie second aspect of tl tat problem- Yet 
such an examination is necessary because tliat aspect of the Hindu- 
Moslem problem is not unimportant. It is a very superficial if 
not an incomplete view to stop with tlie problem oftJie adjustment 
of their claims- It cannot be overlooked that their lot is cast 
together : as such they have to participate in a course of common 
activity whether they like it or not- And if in this common 
activity tliey face each other as two combatants do> then their 
action* and reactions are wwtJt, study, far they affect both and 
produce a state of affairs which if it is a deceased state> the 
question of escape from it must be faced- ^1 study oftJie sitiiation 
shows tJiat tJie actions avid reactions have 2>roduced a malaise 
wJiich exibits itself in there ^vays ( 1) Social Stagnation^ 
(2) Communal Aggression and (3) National Frustration of 
Political Destiny. TJiis malaise is a grave one- Will Pakistan 
be remedy for the malaise ? Or, will it aggravate tJie malaise ? 
The , following chapters are devoted to t7t>e consideration of 
Pakistan as a remedy for the malaise- 


The Social evils which characterize the Hindu Society have 
been well known. The publication of Mother India' by Miss Mayo 
gave these evils the widest publicity. But while Mother India 
served the purpose of exposing these evils and calling their authors 
at the Bar of the world to answer for their sins, it created the 
unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus 
were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, 
the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the 
Hindus were a progressive people. That, such an impression should 
prevail, is of course surprizing to those who know the Muslim 
Society in India at close quarters. 

One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among 
the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims ? 

Take child marriage. The Secretary of the Anti-child-marriage 
Committee, constituted by the All-India Women's Conference 
published a bulletin which gives the extent of the evils of child- 
marriage in the different communities in the country. The figures 
which were taken from the Census Report of 1931 are as follows : 

Married Females aged 0-15 per 1000 Females of that age. 






































Can the position of the Musalmans so far as child marriage is 
considered better than the position of Hindus ? 

Take the position of women. It is insisted by Muslims that the 
legal rights given to Moslem women ensure them a measure of 
independence greater than that of some other Eastern women, for 
example, Hindus and also in excess of the rights of women in some 
Western countries. Reliance is placed on some of the provisions of 
the Muslim Law. 

Firstly it is said the Muslim Law does not fix any age for 
marriage, and recognizes the right of a girl to marry any time. 
Further except where the marriage is celebrated by the father or 
grand- father a Muslim girl if given in marriage in childhood has the 
power to repudiate her marriage on attaining puberty. 

Secondly marriage among the Musalmans is a contract. Being 
a contract the husband has a right to divorce his wife and the 
Muslim Law has provided ample safeguards for the wife which, if 
availed of, would place the Muslim wife on the same footing as the 
husband in the matter of divorce. For, the wife under the Muslim 
Law can, at the time of the marriage, or even thereafter in some 
cases, enter into a contract by which she may under certain circum- 
stances obtain a divorce. 

Thirdly the Mahomedan Law requires that a wife can claim 
from her husband, by way of consideration for the surrender of her 
person, a sum of money or other property known as her < Dower \ 
The dower may be fixed even after marriage and if no amount is 
fixed the wife is entitled to proper dower. The amount of dower 
is usually split into two parts, one is called "prompt" which is 
payable on demand, and other "deferred" which is payable on 
dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. Her claim for dower 
will be treated as a debt against the husband's estate. She has 
complete dominion over her dower which is intended to give her 
economic independence. She can remit it or she can appropriate 
the income of it as she pleases* 



Granting all these provisions of law in her favour, the Muslim 
woman is the most helpless person in the world. To quote an 
Egyptian Moslem leader 

" Islam has set its seal of inferiority upon her, and given the 
sanction of religion to social customs which have deprived her of the 
full opportunity for self-expression and development of personality/' 

No Muslim girl has the courage to repudiate her marriage 
although it may be open to her on the ground that she was a child 
and that it was brought about by persons other than her parents. 
No Muslim wife will think it proper to have a clause entered into 
her marriage contract reserving her the right to divorce. In that 
event her fate is 'once married, always married.' She cannot escape 
the marriage tie however irksome it may be. While she cannot 
repudiate the marriage the husband can always do it without having 
to show any cause. Utter the word 'TallaK and observe continance 
for three weeks and the woman is cast away. The only restraint on 
his caprice is the obligation to pay dower. If the dower has already 
been remitted his right to divorce is a matter of his sweet will. 

This latitude in the matter of divorce destroys that sense of 
security which is so fundamental for a full, free and happy life for 
a woman. This insecurity of life to which a Muslim woman is 
exposed is greatly augmented by the right of polygamy and 
concubinage, which the Muslim law gives to the husband. 

Mahomedan Law allows a Muslim to marry four wives at 
a time. It is not unoften said that this is an improvement over the 
Hindu Law which places no restrictions on the number of wives 
a Hindu can have at any given time. But it is forgotten that in 
addition to the four legal wives the Muslim Law permits, 
a Mahomedan to cohabit with his female slaves. In the case of 
female slaves nothing is said as to the number. They re allowed to 
him without any restriction whatever and without any obligation to 
marry them. 

No words can adequately express the great and many evils of 
polygamy and concubinage and especially as a source of misery to 
a Muslim woman. It is true that because polygamy and concubinage 
are sanctioned one must not suppose they are indulged in by 


generality of Muslims ; still the fact remains that they are previleges 
which are easy for a Muslim to abuse to the misery and unhappiness of 
his wife. Mr. John J. Pool, no enemy of Islam, observes* : 

"This latitude in the matter of divorce is very greatly taken 
advantage of by some Mohammedans. Stobart, commenting on this 
subject in his book, ' Islam, and its Founder, ' says : " Some 

Mohammedans make a habit of continually changing their wives. 
We read of young men who have had twenty and thirty wives, a new 

one every three months ; and thus it comes about that women are 
liable to be indefinitely transferred from one man to another, obliged 
to accept a husband and a homo whenever they can find one, or in 
case of destitution, to which divorce may have driven them, to resort 
to other more degrading means of living/' Thus while keeping the 
strict letter of the law, and possessing only one or certainly not more 
than four wives, unscrupulous characters may yet by divorce obtain 
in a lifetime as many wives as they please. 

"In another way also a Mohammedan may really have more than 
four wives, and yet keep within the law. This is by means of living 
with concubines, which the Koran expressly permits. In that sura 
which allows four wives, the words are added, "or the slaves which 
ye shall have acquired." Then, in the 7oth sura, it is revealed that 
it is no sin to live with slaves. The very words are : "The slaves 
which their right hands possess, as to them they shall be blameless." 
At the present day, as in days past, in multitudes of Mohammedan 
homes, slaves are found ; and as Muir say, in his ' Life of Mahomet ' 
"so long as this unlimited permission of living with their female 
slaves continues, it cannot be expected that there will be any hearty 
attempt to put a stop to slavery in Mohammedan countries," Thus 
the Koran, in this matter of slavery, is the enemy of the mankind. 
And women, as usual, are the greatest sufferers." 

Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Every- 
body infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding 
slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law 
But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and 
Islamic countries/f" While the prescriptions by the Prophet 
regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in 

* Studies in MahomedaDism pp. 34 35. 
f Studies in Mahomedamsm. Chapter XXXJX, 


the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that 
lends to the abolition of this curse. As Sir W. Muir has well 
said* : 

" . . . . rather, while lightening, he rivetted the fetter There is 

no obligation on a Moslem to release his slaves 

But if slavery has gone, caste has remained. As an illustration 
one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims. 
The Superin tan dent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of 
Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims 
of Bengal : 

" The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes- 
Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan has very little application to this 
Province ( Bengal ). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two 
main social divisions, (i) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf 
means 'noble' and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners 
and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans 
including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, 
are known by the contemptuous terms, ' Ajlaf, "wretches" or 
"mean people" : they are also called Karaina or Itar, 'base' or 
Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, 'worthless'. In some places a third 
class, called Arzal or ( lowest of all' is added. With them no other 
Mahomedaii would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the 
mosque or to use the public burial ground. 

" Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of 
exactly the same nature us one finds among the Hindus. 

I. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans. 

(1) Saiads. 

(2) Sheikhs. 

(3) Pathans. 

(4) Moghul. 

(5) Mallik. 

(6) Mirza. 

II. Ajlaf or lower class Mohamedans. 

(i) Cultivating Sheiks, and others who were originally Hindus 
but who do not belong to any functional group, and have not 
gained admittance to the Ashraf Community e. g. Pirali and 


* ______ . , .. _ _ L _ r 

* The Goran, its Composition aq i Teaching p. 58, 



(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez. 

(3) Barhi, Bhathiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, 
Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, 
Mallah, Naliya, Nikari. 

(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhat, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, 
Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nat, Panwaria, Madaria, 

III. Arzal or degraded class. 

Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi Maugta, Mehtar." 

The Census Supeiintendent mentions another feature^ of the 
Muslim Social system, namely, the prevalence of the "panchayet 
system, he states " : 

" The authority of the panchayet extends to social as well as trade 

matters and marriage with people of other communities is one 

of the offences of which the governing body takes cognizance. The 
result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu 
castes. The prohibition on inter-marriage extends to higher as well 
as to lower castes, and a Dhuma, for example, may marry no one 
but a Dhuma. If this rule is transgressed, the offender is at once 
hauled up before the panchayet and ejected igiiominously from his 
community. A member of one such group cannot ordinarily gain 
admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community 
in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive occupation 

and takes to other means of livelihood thousands of J claims 

are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas." 

Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered 
from their respective Census Reports and those who are curious 
may refer to them. But the facts for Bengal are enough to show 
that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability. 

There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society 
in India is afflicted by the same social evils which afflict the Hindu 
Society. Indeed the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus 
and something more. That something more is the compulsory 
system of Purdah for Muslim women. 

As a consequence of the Purdah system a segregation of the 
Muslim women is brought about. The ladies are not expected to 
visit the outer rooms, varandahs or gardens their quarters are in the 


backyard. All of them, young arid old, are confined in the same 
room ; No male servant can work in their presence. Women 
are allowed to see only their sons, brothers, father, uncles and 
husband, or any other near relation who may be admitted to 
a position of trust. The cannot go even to the mosque to pray and 
must wear burka (veil) whenever they have to go out. These burka 
women walking in the streets is a one of the most hideous sights one 
can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorat- 
ing effects, upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They 
are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis and pyorrhoea. Their 
bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands 
and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart 
palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic 
deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives 
Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment. Being deprived 
of healthy social life, the process of moral degeneration must and does 
set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world they 
engage their minds in petty family quarrels with the result that 
they became narrow and restricted in their out-look. 

They lag behind their other sisters, cannot take part in any 
out-door activity and are weighed down by a slavish mentality and 
an inferiority complex. They have no desire for knowledge, 
because they are taught not to be interested in anything outside the 
four walls of the house. Purdah women in particular become 
helpless, timid, and unfit for any fight in life. Considering the large 
number of purdah women among Muslims in India, one can easily 
understand the vastness and seriousness of the problem of purdah.* 

The physical and the intellectual effects of purdah are 
nothing as compared with its effects on morals. The origin 
of purdah lies of course in the deep-rooted suspicion of sexual 
appetites in both sexes and the purpose is to check them by 
segregating the sexes. But far from achieving the purpose, purdah 
has adversely affected the morals of Muslim men. Owing to purdah 
a Muslim has no contact with any woman outside those who belong 
to his own household. Even with them his contact extends only 
to occasional conversation. Fora male there is no company of ancj 

* For the position of Muslim womeo see "Our Cause 1 ' edited by Shy am Kumar i Nebr*. 


no comingling with the females except those who are children or 
aged. This isolation of the males from females is sure to produce 
bad effects on the morals of men. It requires no psychoanalyst to 
say that a social system which cuts off all contact between the two 
sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and 
unnatural and other morbid habits and ways. 

The evil consequences of purdha are not confjned to the 
Muslim community only. It is responsible for tliL- seggrega- 
tion of Hindus from Muslims which is the bane of public life in 
India. This argument may appear for fetched and one is inclined 
to attribute this seggregation to the unsociability of the Hindus rather 
than to purdah among the Muslims. But the Hindus are right 
when they say that it is not passible to establish social contact between 
Hindus and Muslims because such contact can only mean contact 
between women from one side and men from the other.* 

Not that purdah and the evils consequent Ah^reon arc not to 
be found among certain sections of the Hindus in certain parts of 
the country. But the point of distinction is that among the 
Muslims, purdah has a religious sanctity which it has not with the 
Hindus. The evil of purdah has deeper roots among the Muslims 
than it has among the Hindus and can only be removed by facing 
the inevitable conflict between religious injunctions and social needs. 
The problem of purdah is a real problem with the Muslims apart 
from its origin which it is not with the Hindus. But, of any 
attempt by the Muslims to do away with it, there is no evidence. 

There is thus a stagnation in the social life of the Muslims. 
But there is also a stagnation in the political life of the Muslim 
community of India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as 
such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily 
seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes 
for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim 
constituency does not care to examine the programme of the 
candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is 
that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by 

* The Europeans who are accused by Indians for not admitting them to thcrir clubs 
use the same argument : " we bring our women to the clubs. If you agree to bring your 
women to the club you can be admitted. We can't expose our women to your company 
if you tieny us fche company of your women. Be ready to go fifty fifty, then ask for entry 
in our clubs." 


supplying new ones as his cost, to provide a new carpet for the 
masjid bacause the old one is torn, to repair the masjid because it 
has become dilapidated. In some places a Muslim constituency is 
quite satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast and 
in other places if he agrees to buy votes for so much a piece. With 
the Muslims election is a mere matter of money and is very seldom 
a matter of social programme of general improvement. Muslim 
politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the 
differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and 
tenant, priest and laymen, reason and superstition. Muslim politics 
is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference namely, that 
existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular 
categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim 
community and if they do find a place and they must because 
they arc irrepressible they are subordinated to one and the only 
governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion. 


The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing 
enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no 
organized movement of social reform among the Mussalmans of 
India on a scale sufficient to being about their eradication. The 
Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature 
about them namely that some of them are conscious of their 
existence and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. 
But the Muslims on the other hand do not realize that they are evil 
and consequently do not agitate for their removal. On the other hand 
they oppose any change in their existing practices. It is noteworthy 
that the Muslims opposed the Child Marriage Bill brought in the 
Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the age for marriage of a girl 
was raised to 14 and of a boy to 1 6 on the ground that it was 
opposed to the Muslim cannon law. Not only did they oppose the 
bill at every stage but that when it became law they started 
a compaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act. Fortunately the 
Civil Disobedience campaign of the Muslims against the Act did 
not swell and was submerged in the Congress Civil Disobedience 
campaign which synchronized with it. But the fact remains that the 
Muslims are opposed to social reform. 


The question may be asked why are the Muslims opposed to 
social reform ? 

The usual answer given is that the Muslims all over the world 
are an unprogressive people. This view no doubt accords with 
the facts of history. After the first spurts of their activity the 
scale of which was undoubtedly stupendous leading to the foundations 
of vast Empires the Muslims suddenly fell into a strange condition 
of torpor, from which they never seemed to have become awake. 
The cause assigned for this torpor by those who have made a study 
of their condition is said to be the fundamental assumption made by 
all Muslims that Islam is a world religion, suitable for all peoples, 
for all times and for all conditions. It has been contended that : 
"The Mussulman, remaining faithful to his religion, has not pro- 
gressed; he has remained stationary in a worli of swifty moving 
modern forces. It is indeed, one of the salient features of Islam that 
it immobilizes in the native barbarism the races whom it enslaves. 
It is fixed in a crystallization, inert and impenetrable. It is 
mnchangeable ; and political, social or economic changes have no 
repercussion upon it. 

11 Having been taught that outside Islam there can be no safety ; 
outside its law no truth and outside its spiritual massage there is no 
happiness, the Muslim has become incapable of conceiving any other 
condition than his own, any other mode of thought than the Islamic 
thought. He firmly believes that he has arrived at any unequalled 
pitch of perfection ; that he is the sole possessor of true faith, of the 
true doctrine, the true wisdom ; that he alone is in possession of the 
truth no relative truth subject to revision, but absolute truth. 

"The religious law of the Muslims has had the effect of imparting 
to 'the very diverse individuals of whom the world is composed, 
a unity of thought, of feeling, of ideas of judgment." 

It is urged that this uniformity is deadening and is not merely 
imparted to the Muslims, but is imposed upon them by a spirit of 
intolerance which is unknown anywhere outside the Muslim world 
for its severity and its violence and which is directed towards the 
suppression of all rational thinking which is in conflict with the 
teachings of Islam. As Renan observes : 

4t Islam is a close union of the spiritual and the temporal ; it is the 
reign of, a dogma, it is the heaviest chain that humanity has ever 
borne ....! si am has its beauties as a religioa ;,..,.. But to the 


human reason Islamism has only been injurious. The minds that it 
has shut from the light were, no doubt, already closed in their own 
internal limits ; but it has persecuted fiee thought, I shall not say 
more violently than other religions, but more effectually. It has 
made of the countries that it has conquered a closed field to the 
rational culture of the mind. What is, in fact essentially distinctive 
of the Musalman is his hatred of science, his persuation that research 
is useless, frivolous, almost impious the natural sciences, because 
they are attempts at rival^ with God ; the historical sciences, 
because since they apply to times anterior to Islam, they may revive 

ancient heresies " Renan concludes by saying "Islam, in 

treating science as an enemy, is only consistent, but it is a dangerous 
thing to be consistent. To its own misfortune Islam has been 
successful. By slaying science it has slain itself ; and is condemned 
In the world to a complete inferiority/' 

But this obvious answer cannot be the true answer. If it were 
the true answer how are we to account for the stir and ferment that 
is going on in all Muslim countries outside India where the spirit of 
inquiry, the spirit of change and the desire to reform is noticeable 
in every walk of life. Indeed the social reforms which have taken 
place in Turkey have been of the most revolutionary character. If 
Islam has not come in the way of the Muslims of these countries, 
why should it come in the way of the Muslims of India ? There 
must be some special reason for the social and political stagnation 
in the Muslim community of India. 

What that special reason can be ? It seems to me that the 
reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian 
Mussalman is to be sought in the peculiar position he occupies in 
India. He is placed in a social environment which is predominantly 
Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently but surely 
encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-mussalmanizing him. 
As a protection against this gradual weaning out he is led to insist 
on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine 
whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the 
Muslims in India are placed in a political environment which is also 
predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that 
political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is 
this consciousness that he has to save himself from being submerged 
by the Hindus socially and politically which to my mind is the 


primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their 
fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their 
energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the 
Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought 
and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there 
is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated 
by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united 
front to the menace of Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their 
socio-religious unity at any cost. 

The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the 
Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not recognize 
secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them 
it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the 
Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get 
justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants 
to prevent the tyranny of the land-lords. Muslim labourers will not 
join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why ? 
The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the 
fight of the poor against the rich he may be fighting against a rich 
Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign 
against the land-lord he may have to fight against a Muslim land-lord. 
A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour 
against capital he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is 
conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to Muslim landlord or 
to a Muslim millowner is a disservice to the Muslim Community 
for it weakens the Community in its struggle against the Hindu 

How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the 
attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian 
States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation 
for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu 
State of Kashmere. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly 
opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other 
Muslim States. This is somewhat difficult to understand. But the 
reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. The determining 
question with the Muslims is how will that affect the Muslims- If 
representative government can help the Muslims they will demand 


it and fight for it. In the State of Kashmere the ruler is a Hindu 
but the majority of its subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought 
for representative government in Kashmere because representative 
government in Kashmere means the transfer of power from 
a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States 
the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. 
In such States representative government means the transfer of power 
from a Muslim Ruler to the Hindu masses and that is why the 
Muslims support the introduction of representative government in 
one case and oppose it in the other case. The dominating 
consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating 
consideration is how 7 will democracy affect the Muslims in their 
struggle against the Hindus. ^Vill it strengthen them or will it 
weaken them ? If democracy weakens them they will not have 
democracy. They will rather prefer the rotten state to continue in 
the Muslim States than weaken the Muslim Ruler in his hold upon 
his Hindu subjects. 

The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community 
can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that 
the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle, the Hindus, to 
establish their dominance over the the Muslims and the Muslims 
to establish their historical position as the ruling community that 
in this struggle the strong will win and to ensure strength they must 
suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension 
in their ranks. 

If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of 
the reform of their society and the Muslims of India have refused to 
do so, it is because the former are free from the communal and 
political clashes with rival communities while the latter are not. 


It is not that this blind spirit of conservatism which does not 

recognize the need of repair to the social structure has taken hold of 

the Muslims only. It has taken hold of the Hindus also. The 

Hindus at one time did recognize that without social efficiency no 



permanent progress in the other fields of activity was possible, that 
owing to the mischief wrought by the evil customs Hindu Society 
was not in a state of efficiency and that ceaseless efforts must be 
made to eradicate these evils. It was due to the recognition of this 
fact that the birth of the National Congress was accompanied by 
the foundation of the Social Conference. While the Congress was 
concerned with defining the weak points in the political organisation 
of the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the 
weak points in the social organisation of the Hindu Society. For 
some time the Congress and the Conference worked as two wings 
of one common activity and they held their annual sessions in the 
same pandal. But soon the two wings developed into two parties, 
a Political Reform Party and a Social Reform Party, between whom 
there raged a fierce controversy. The Political Reform Party 
supported the National Congress and Social Reform Party supported 
the Social Conference. The two bodies thus became two hostile 
camps. The point at issue was whether social reform should precede 
political reform. For a decade the forces were evenly balanced and 
the battle was fought without victory to either side. It was however 
evident that the fortunes of the Social Conference were ebbing fast. 
The gentlemen who presided over the sessions of the Social 
Conference lamented that the majority of the educated Hindus were 
for political advancement and indifferent to social reform and that 
while the number of those who attended the Congress was very 
large and the number who did not attend but who sympathized with 
it even larger, the number of those who attended the Social 
Conference was very much smaller. This indifference, this thinning 
of its ranks was soon followed by active hostility from the politicians, 
like the late Mr. Tilak, Thus, in course of time the party in favour 
of political reform won and the Social Conference vanished and was 
forgotten.* And with it also vanished from the Hindu Society the 
urge for social reform. Under the leadership of -Mr. Gandhi the Hindu 
society if it did not become a political mad-house certainly became 
mad after politics. Non -Cooperation, Civil Disobedience, and a cry 
for Swaraj took the place which social reform once had in the minds 
of the Hindus. In the din and dest of political agitation the Hindus 

Statemwt see my tract cm Annihilation of Ca&e. : 


do not even know that there are any evils to be remedied. Those 
who are conscious of it do not believe that social reform is as 
important as political reform, and when forced to admit its 
importance argue that there can be no social reform unless first 
political power is achieved. They are so eager to possess political 
power that they are impatient even of propaganda in favour of social 
reform as so much time and energy deducted from political propa- 
ganda. A correspondent of Mr. Gandhi put the point of view of 
the Nationalists very appropriately if bluntly when he wrote* to 
Mr. Gandhi, saying : 

" Don't you think that it is impossible to achive any great reform 
without winning political power ? The present economic structure 
has got to be tackled ? No reconstruction is possible without 
political reconstruction and I am afraid all this talk of polished and 
unpolished rice, balanced diet and so on and so forth is mere 

The Social Reform party, led by Ranade and Gokhale, died 
leaving the field to the Congress. There has grown up among the 
Hindus another party which is also a rival to the Congress. It is 
the Hindu Maha Sabha. One would expect from its name that it 
was a body for bringing about the reform of Hindu Society. But 
it is not. Its rivalry with the Congress has nothing to do with the 
issue of social reform vs. political reform. Its quarrel with the 
Congress has its origin in the pro-Muslim policy of the Congiess. It 
is organized for the protection of Hindu rights against Muslim 
enchroachment. Its plan is to organize the Hindus, lor offering 
a common front to the Muslims. As a body organized to protect 
Hindu rights it is all the time engaged in keeping an eye on political 
movements on seats and posts. It cannot spare any thought for 
social reform. As a body keen on bringing about a common front 
of all Hindus it cannot afford to create dissensions among its elements 
as would be the case if it undertook to bring about social reforms. 
For the sake of the consolidation of the Hindu rank and file the 
Hindu Maha Sabha is ready to suffer all social evils to remain as 
they are. For the sake of consolidation of the Hindus it is prepared 
to welcome the Federation as devised by the Act of 1935 inspite of its 
many inequities and defects. For the same purpose the Hindu 

lliih, Jatfcwy 1934, ^ , i 


Maha Sabha favours the retention of the Indian States with their 
administration as it is. ' Hands off the Hindu States' has been the 
battle cry of its President. This attitude is stranger than that of the 
Muslims. Representative government in Hindu States cannot do 
harm to the Hindus. Why then should the President of the Hindu 
Mahasabha oppose it ? Probably because it helps the Muslims 
which he cannot tolerate. 


To what length this concern for the conservation of their forces 
can lead the Hindus and the Musalmans cannot be better illustrated 
than by the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act VIII of 1939 passed 
by the Indian Legistature. Before 1939 the law was that apostasy 
of a male or female married under the Muslim Law ipso facto 
dissolved the marriage with the result that if a Muslim married 
woman changed her religion she was free to marry any person 
professting her new religion. This was the rule of law enforced by 
the courts all throughout India at any rate for the last 60 years*. 

This law was annulled by the Act VIII of 1939, section 4 of 
which reads as follows : 

" The renunciation of Islam by a married Muslim woman or her 
conversion to a faith other than Islam shall not by itself operate to 
dissolve her marriage : 

Provided that after such renunciation, or conversion the woman 
shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of marriage on 
any of the grounds mentioned in Section 2 : 

Provided further that the provisions of this section shall riot apply 
to a woman converted to Islam from some other faith who re- 
embraces her former faith." 

According to this Act the marriage of a Muslim married woman 
is not dissolved by reason of her conversion to another religion. All 
that she gets is a right of divorce. It is very intriguing to find that 
section 2 does not refer to conversion or apostasy as a ground for 
divorce. The effect of the law is that a Muslim married woman 

* The eat-liest reported decision waa that given by the High Courfc of the North West 
Province in 1870 in the case of Zabaroc&t Kh&n vs. His wife. 


has no liberty of conscience and is tied for ever to her husband 
whose religious faith may be quite abhorent to her. 

The grounds urged in support of this change are well worth 
attention. The mover of the Bill Quazi Kazmi, M.L.A. adopted 
a very ingenious line of argument in support of the change. In his 
speech * on the motion to refer the Bill he said : 

Apostasy was considered by Islam, as by any other religion, as 
a great crime, almost amounting to a crime against the State. It is 
not novel for the religion of Islam to have that provision. If we look 
up the older Acts of any nation, we will find that similar provision 
also exists in other Codes as well. For the male a severer punishment 
was awarded, that of death, and for females, only the punishment 
of imprisonment was awarded. This main provision was that 
because it was a sin, it was a crime, it was to be punished, and the 
woman was to be deprived of her status as wife. It was not only 
this status that she lost, but she lost all her status in society, she was 
deprived of her propety and civil rights as well. But we find that as 
early as 1850 an Act was passed here, called the Caste Disabilities 
Removal Act of 1850, Act XXI of 1850 

" .... by this Act, the forfeiture of civil rights that could be imposed 
on a woman 011 her apostasy has been taken away. She can no longer 
be subjected to any forfeiture of property or her right of inheritance 
or anything of the kind. The only question is that the Legislature 
has come to her help, it has given her a certain amount of liberty of 
thought, some kind of liberty or religion to adopt any faith she likes, 
and has removed the forfeiture clause from which she could suffer, 
and which was a restraint upon her changing the faith. The question 
is how far we are entitled after that to continue placing the restriction 
on her status as a wife. Her status as a wife is of some importance 
in society. She belongs to some family, she has got children, she 
has got other connections too. If she has got a liberal mind, she 
may not like to continue the same old religion. If she changes her 
religion, why should we, according to our modern ideas, inflict upon 
her a further penalty that she will cease to be the wife of her husband. 
I submit, in these days when we are advocating freedom of thought 
and freedom of religion, when we are advocating inter-marriages 
between different communities, it would be inconsistent for us to 
support a provision that a mere change of faith or change cf religion 
would entail forfeiture of her rights as the wife of her husband. 

* Legislative Assembly Debates 1938,V?ol. V, pages 10981101 


: So, from a modern point of view, I have got no hesitation in saying 
that we cannot, in any way, support the contrary proposition that 
apostasy must be allowed to finish her relationship with her husband. 
But that is only one part of the argument. 

"Section 32 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, is to 
the effect that a married woman may sue for divorce on the grounds 
"that the defendant has ceased to be a Parsi .... 

"There are two things apparent from this. The first is, that it is 
a ground for dissolution, not from any religious idea or religious 
sentiment, because, if two years have passed after the conversion and 
if plaintiff does not object, then either the male or female has no 
right to sue for dissolution of marriage. The second thing is, that 
it is the plaintiff who has got the complaint that the other party has 
changed the religion, who has got the right of getting the marriage 

dissolved In addition to this Act, as regards other 

communities we can have an idea of the effect of conversion on 
marriage tie from the Native Converts' Marriage .Dissolution Act, 

Act XXI of 1866 It applies to all the communities of 

India, and this legislation recognises the fact that mere conversion 
of an Indian to Christianity would not dissolve the marriage but he 
will have the right of going to a law court and saying that the other 
party, who is not converted, must perform the marital duties in 

respect of him then they are given a year's time and the 

judge directs that they shall have an interview with each other in 
the presence of certain other persons to induce them to resume their 
conjugal relationship, and if they do not agree, then on the ground 
of desertion the marriage is dissolved. The marriage is dissolved 

no doubt, but not on the ground of change of faith, So, every 

community in India has got this accepted principle that conversion 
to another religion cannot amount to a dissolution of marriage." 

Syed Gulam Bikh Nairang another Muslim member of the 
Assembly and a protagonist of the Bill was brutally frank. In support 
of the principle of the Bill he said* ; 

. " For a very longtime the courts in British India have held without 
reservation and qualification that under all circumstances apostasy 
automatically and immediately puts an end to the married state 
without any judicial proceedings, any decree of court, or any other 
ceremony* That has been the position which was taken up by the 
Courts, Now, there are three distinct views of Hanafi juris on the 

debates 1838, "tfofc V 1963-55. 


point- One view which is attributed to the Bokhara jurists was : 
adopted and even that not in its entirety but in what I may call muti- 
lated and maimed condition. What that Bokhara view is has been 
already stated by Mr. Kazmi and some other speakers. The Bokhara 
jurists say that marriage is dissolved by apostasy. In fact, I should 
be more accurate in saying I have got authority for that that it is, 
according to the Bokhara view, not dissolved but suspended. The 
marriage is suspended but the wife is then kept in custody or confine- 
ment till she repents and embraces Islam again and then, she is 
induced to marry the husband, whose marriage was only suspended 
and not put an end to or cancelled. The second view is that on 
apoastasy a married Muslim ceases to be the wife of her husband but 
becomes his bond woman. One view, which is a sort of corollary to 
this view, is that she is not necessarily the bond woman of her 
ex-husband but she becomes the bond woman of the entire Muslim 
community and anybody can empoloy her as a bond woman. The 
third view, that of the Ulema of Samarkand and : Balkh is that the 
marriage tie is not afiected by such apostasy and that the woman 
still continues to be the wife of the husband. These are the three 
views. A portion of the first view, the Bokhara view, was taken hold 
of by the Courts and rulings after rulings were based on that portion. 

" This house is well aware that it is not only in this solitary 
instance that judicial error is sought to be corrected by legislation, 
but in many other cases, too, there have been judicial errors or 
conflicts of judicial opinion or uncertainties and vagueness of law. 
Errors of judicial view are being constantly corrected by legislation. 
In this particular matter there has been an error after error and a 
tragedy of errors. To show me those rulings is begging the question. 
Surely, it should be realised that it is no answer to my Bill that 
because the High Courts have decided against me, I have no business 
to come to this House and ask it to legislate this way or that way/' 

Having regard to the profundity of the change, the arguments 
urged in support of it were indeed very insubstantial. Mr. Kazmi 
failed to realize that if there was a difference between the divorce 
law relating to Parsis, Christians and Muslims, once it is established 
that the conversion is genuine, the Muslim law was in advance of the 
Parsee and the Christian law and instead of making the Muslim law 
to retrograde, the proper thing ought to have been to make the Parsi 
and the Christian law progress. Mr. Nairang did not stop to inquire 
that if there were different schools of thought among the Muslim 


jurists whether it was not more in consonance with justice to adopt 
the more enlightened view \vhich recognized the freedom of the 
Muslim woman and not to replace it by the barbaric one which 
made her a bondswoman. 

Be that as it may, the legal arguments had nothing to do with 
the real motive underlying the change. The real motive was to put 
a stop to the illicit conversion of women to alien faiths followed by 
immediate and hurried marriages with some one professing the faith 
she happened to have joined with a view to lock her in the new 
community and prevent her from going back to the community to 
which she originally belonged. The conversion of Muslim women 
to Hinduism and of Hindu women to Islam looked at from social 
and political point of view cannot but be fraught with tremendous 
consequences. It means a distubance in the numerical balance 
between the two communities. As the disturbance was being 
brought about by the abduction of women it could not be overlooked. 
For woman is at once the seed of and the hop-house for nationalism 
more than man can ever be.* These conversions of women and 
their subesequent marriages were therefore regarded, and rightly, as 
series of depradations practised by Hindus against Murlims and by 
Muslims against Hindus with a view to bring about a change in their 
relative numerical strength. This practice of woman-lifting, in 
addition to being as had, had become as common as cattle lifting 
and with its obvious danger to cattle-lifting had to be stopped. That 
this was the real reason can be seen from the two provisos to Section 
4 of the Act. In Proviso I the Hindus concede to the Musalmans 
that if they convert a woman who was originally a Muslim she will 
remain bound to her former Muslim husband notwithstanding her 
conversion. By Proviso 2 the Muslims concede to the Hindus that 
if they convert a Hindu married woman and she is married to 
a Musalman, her marriage will be deemed to be dissolved if she 
renounces Islam and she will be free to return to her Hindu fold^ 
Thus what underlies the change in law is the desire to keep the 
numerical balance and it is for this purpose that the rights of women 
were sacrificed. 

* The part played by woman in sustaining nationalism has not been sufficiently noticed 
See the observations of Bennap on this point in Ma Essay on Nationality, 


There are two other features of this malaise which have not 
been sufficiently noted. 

The jealousy with which one of them looks upon any reform by 
the other in its social system, if the effect of such reform is to give 
it increase of strength for resistance, is one such feature. 

Swami Shradhanand relates a very curious incident which well 
illustrates this attitude. Writing in the Liberator* his recollections 
he refers to this incident. He says : 

"Mr. Ranade was there to guide the Social Conference to 

which the title of " National" was for the first and last time given. 
It was from the beginning a Hindu Conference in all walks of life. 
The only Mahomedan delegate who joined the National Social 
Conference was a Muftisaheb of Barreily. Well ! The Conference 
began when the resolution in favour of remarriage of child-widows 
was moved by a Hindu delegate and by me. Sanatanist Pandits 
opposed it. Then the Mufti asked permission to speak. The late 
Baijnath told Muftisaheb that as the resolution concerned the Hindus 
only, he need not speak. At this the Mufti flared up. 

" There was no loophole left for the President and Muftisaheh was 
allowed, to have his say. Muftisaheb's argument was that as Hindu 
Shastras did not allow remarriage, it was a sin to press for it. 
Again, when the resolution about the reconversion of those who had 
become Christians and Mussalmans came up, Muftisaheb urged 
that when a man abandoned the Hindu religion he ought not to be 
allowed to come back." 

Another illustration would be the attitude of the Muslims towards 
the problem of the Untouchables. The Muslims have always been 
looking at the Depressed Classes with a sense of longing and much 
of the jealousy between Hindus and Muslims arises out of the fear 
of the latter that the former might become stronger by assimilating 
the Depressed Classes. In 1909 the Muslims took the bold step 
of suggesting that the Depressed Classes should not be enrolled 
in the Census as Hindus. In 1923 Mr. Mahomed Ali in his address 
as the President of the Congress went much beyond the position 
taken by the Muslims in 1909. He said : 

" The quarrels about ALAMS and PI PAL trees and musical proces- 
sions are truly childish ; but there is one question which can easily 
furnish a ground for complaint of unfriendly action if communal 
activities are not amicably adjusted. It is the question of the 
conversion of the Suppressed Classes, if Hindu society does not speedily 

* 26th April 1936. * "" 



* &]t>sorl> them* The Christian missionary is already busy and no one 
quarrels with him. But the moment some Muslim Missionary 
Society is organized for the same purpose there is every likelihood of 
an outcry in the Hindu Press. It has been suggested to me by an 
influential and wealthy gentleman who is able to organize a Missionary 
Society on a large scale for the conversion of the Suppressed Classes, 
that it should be possible to reach a settlement with leading Hindu 
gentlemen and divide the country into separate areas where Hindu and 
Muslim Missionaries could respectively work, each community 
preparing for each year, or longer unit of time if necessary, an estimate 
of the numbers it is prepared to absorb or convert. These estimates 
would, of course, be based on the number of workers and funds each 
had to spare, and tested by the actual figures of the previous period. 
In this way each community would be free to do the work of absorp- 
tion and conversion, or rather, of reform without chances of collision 
with one another. I cannot say in what light my Hindu brethren 
will take it and I place this suggestion tentatively in all frankness and 
sincerity before them. All that I say for myself is that I have seen 
the condition of the " Kali Praja " in the Baroda State and of the 
Gonds in the Central Provinces and I frankly confess it is a reproach 
to us all. If the Hindus will not absorb them into their own society, 
others will and must, and then the orthodox Hindu too will cease to 
treat them as untouchables. Conversion seems to transmute them 
by a strong alchemy. But does this not place a premium upon 
conversion ? " 

The other feature is the " preparations " which the Muslims and 
Hindus are making against each other without abatement. It is like 
a race in armaments between two hostile nations. If the Hindus have 
the Benares University, the Musalmans must have the Aligarh 
University. If the Hindus start Shudhi movement, the Muslims must 
launch the Tablig movement. If the Hindus start Sangathan, the 
Muslims must meet it by Tanjim. If the Hindus have the R. S. S.*, the 
Muslims must reply by organizing the Khaksars.f This race in social 
armament and equipment is run with the determination and apprehens- 
ion characteristic of nations which are on the war path. The Muslims 
fear that the Hindus are subjugating them. The Hindus feel that 
the Muslims are engaged in reconquering them. Both appear to be 
preparing for war and each is watching the " preparations " of the other. 

* Short lor the Rashtriya Sway am Sevaka Sangh which is a Hindu volunteer corps. 
f Kh*k$*w is a. Muslim voluatoor corps. 


Such a state of things cannot but be ominous. It is a vicious 
circle. If the Hindus make themselves stronger, the Musalmans 
feel menaced. The Muslims endeavour to increase their forces to 
meet the menace and the Hindus then do the same to equalize the 
position. As the preparations proceed so does the suspicion, the 
secrecy, and the plotting. The possibilities of peaceable adjustment 
are poisoned at the source and precisely because every one is fearing 
and preparing for it that " war " between the two tends to become 
inevitable. But in the situation in which they find themselves, for 
the Hindus and Muslims not to attend to anything, except to prepare 
themselves to meeting the challenge of the one by the other, is quite 
natural. It is a struggle for existence and the issue that counts is, 
survival and not the quality or the plane of survival. 

Two things must be said to have emerged from this discussion. 
One is that the Hindus and Muslims regard each other as a menace. 
The second is that to meet this menace, both have suspended the 
cause of removing the social evils with which they are infested. Is 
this a desirable state of things ? If it is not a desirable state of things, 
how can it be ended ? 

No one can say that to have the problems of social reform 
put aside, is a desirable state of things. "Wherever there are social 
evils the health of the body politic requires that they shall be 
removed before they become the symbols of suffering and injustice. 
For it is the social and economic evils which everywhere are the 
parent of revolution or decay. Whether social reform should precede 
political reform or political reform should precede social reform may be 
a matter of controversy. But there can be no two opinions on the 
question that the sole object of political power is the use to which it can 
be put in the cause of social and economic reform. The whole struggle 
for political power would be a barren and a bootless labour, if it was 
not justified by the feeling that, because of the want of political 
power, urgent and crying social evils are eating into the vitals of 
society and are destroying it. But suppose Hindus and Muslims 
somehow come into possession of political power, what hope is there 
that they will use it for purposes of social reform ? There is hardly 
any hope in that behalf. So long as the Hindus and Muslims 
regard each other as a menace, their attention will be engrossed in 
preparations, for meeting the menace. The exigencies of a common 


front will generate that conspiracy of silence which will not brook 
any call for reform. So long as the menace is there, the spirit of conser- 
vativism will continue to dominate the thoughts and actions of both. 
The situation will be a heaven for the haves and a hell for the have-nots. 
How long will this menace last ? It is sure to last as long as the 
Hindus and Muslims are required to live as members of one country 
under the mantle of a single constitution. For it is the fear of the 
single constitution with the possibility of the shifting of the balance 
for nothing can keep the balance at the point originally fixed by the 
Constitution which makes the Hindus a menace to the Muslims 
and the Muslims a menace to the Hindus. If this is so, Pakistan is 
the obvious remedy. It certainly removes the chief condition which 
makes for the menace. Pakistan liberates both the Hindus and 
the Muslims from the fear of enslavement of and encroachment against 
each other. It removes, by providing a separate constitution for each, 
Pakistan and Hindustan, the very basis which leads to this perpetual 
struggle for keeping a balance of power in the day to day life and 
frees them to take into hand those vital matters of urgenfc social 
importance which they are now forced to put aside in cold storage 
and improve the lives of their people, which after all is the main 
object of this fight for Swaraj. 

Without some such arrangement the Hindus and Muslims will 
act and react as though they were two nations, one about to be 
conquered by the other. Preparations will always have precedence 
over social reform, so that the social stagnation which has set in will 
continue. This is quite natural and no one need be surprized at 
it. For, as Bernard Shaw pointed out : 

" A conquerred nation is like a man with cancer ; he can think 

of nothing else A healthy nation is as unconscious of its 

nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's 
nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again. 
It will listen to no reformer, to no philosopher, to no preacher, until the 
demand of the nationalist is granted. It will attend to no businesss, 
however vital, except the business of unification and liberation. " 

Unless there is unification of the Muslims who wish to separate 
from the Hindus and unless there is liberation of each from the fear 
of domination by the other, this malaise of social stagnation will 
not be set right. 



Even a superficial observer cannot fail to notice that a spirit 
of aggression underlies the Hindu attitude towards the Muslim and 
the Muslim attitude towards the Hindu. The Hindu's spirit of 
aggression is a new phase which he has just begun to cultivate. 
The Muslim's spirit of aggression is his native endowment and is 
very much ancient as compared with that of the Hindu. It is not 
that the Hindu, if given time, will not pick up and overtake the 
Muslim. But as matters stand to-day the Muslim in this exhibition 
of the spirit of aggression leaves the Hindu far behind. 

Enough has been said about the social aggression of the 
Muslims in the chapter dealing with communal riots. It is 
necessary to speak briefly of the political aggression of the Muslims. 
For this political aggression has created a malaise which cannot be 

Three things are noticeable about this political aggression of 
the Muslims. 

First is the ever-growing catalogue of the Muslim's political 
demands. Their origin goes back to the year 1892. 

In 1885 the Indian National Congress was founded. It began 
with a demand foi good government as distinguished from self- 
government. In response to this demand the British Government 
felt the necessity of altering the nature of the Legislative Councils, 
Provincial and Central, established under the Act of 1861. In that 
nascent stage of Congress agitation the British Government did not 
feel called upon to make them fully popular. It thought it enough 


to give them a popular colouring. Accordingly the British Parlia- 
ment passed in 1892 what is called the Indian Councils Act. 
This Act is memorable for two things. It was in this Act of 1892 
that the British Government for the first time accepted the 
semblance of the principle of popular representation as the basis for 
the constitution of the Legislatures in India. It was not a principle 
of election. It was a principle of nomination, only it was qualified 
by the requirement that before nomination a person must be 
selected by important public bodies such as municipalities, district 
boards, universities and the associations of merchants etc. Secondly 
it was in the Legislatures that were constituted under this Act 
that the principle of separate representation for Musalmans was for 
the fitst time introduced in the political constitution of India. 

The introduction of this principle is shrouded in mystery. 
It is a mystery as to why it was introduced so silently and stealthily. 
The principle of separate representation does not find a place in 
the Act. The Act says nothing about it. It was in the directions 
but not in the Act issued to those charged with the duty of 
framing Regulations as to the classes and interests to whom 
representation was to be given that the Muslims \verc named as 
a class to be provided for. 

It is a mystery as to who wa> rospjasible for its introduction. 
This scheme of separate representation was not the result of any 
demand put forth by any organized Muslim Association. In whom did 
it then originate ? It is suggested* that it originated with the Viceroy 
Lord Dufferin who, as far back as the year 1888 when dealing with the 
question of representation in the Legislative Councils, emphasized 
the necessity that in India representation will have to be, not in the 
way representation is secured in England, but representation by 
interests. Curiosity leads to a further question namely what could 
have led Lord Dufferin to propose such a plan ? It is suggestedt 
that the idea was to weanj away the Musalmans from the Congress 

* See the speech of Sir Mahomnd Sbafi in the Minorities Sub-Committee of the first 
R. T. C. (Indian Edition) p. 57. 

f See the speech of Kaja Narendrnnath. Ibid., p. 65. 

J The Musalmans had already boon told by Sir Sayad Abainad not to join the Congress 
in the two speeches one deliherea at Luck DOW en 28th December 1887, and the other at 
Meerut on 16th Match 1S88. Mr. Mahomed Ali in hie presidential address speaks of thorn 
as historic speeches. 


which had already been started three years before. Be that as it 
may it is certain that it is by this Act that separate representation 
for Muslims became, for the first time, a feature of the Indian 
Constitution. It should however be noted that neither the Act nor 
the Regulations conferred any right of selection upon the Muslim 
community and nor did it give the Muslim community a right to 
claim a fixed number of seats. All that it did was to give the 
Muslims the right to separate representation. 

Though, to start with, the suggestion of separate representation 
came from the British, the Muslims did not fail to appreciate the social 
value of separate political rights with the result that when in 1909 
the Muslims came to know that the next step in the reform 
of the Legislative Councils was contemplated they waited of 
their own accord in deputation* upon the Viceroy, Lord Minto and 
placed before him the following demands : 

(i) Communal representation in accordance with their 
numerical strength, social position and local influence, on 
district and municipal boards. 

(li) An assurance of Muhammadan representation on 
the gorverriing bodies of Universities. 

(iii) Communal representation on provincial councils, 
election being by special electoral colleges composed of 
Muhammadan landlords, lawyers, merchants, and represent- 
atives of other important interests, University graduates of 
a certain standing and members of district and municipal 

(iv) The number of Muhammadan representatives in the 
Imperial Legislative Council should not depend on their 
numerical strength, and Muhammadan should never be in 
an ineffective minority. They should be elected as far as 
possible (as opposed to being nominated), election being 
by special Muhammadan colleges composed of landowners, 
lawyers merchants, members of provincial councils, Fellows 
of Universities etc. 

* Mr. Mahomad AH in his speeuh as the President of the Congress said that this 
deputation was a command performance ". 


These demands were granted and given effect to in the Act of 
1909. Under this Act the Muhammadans were given (i) the right 
to elect their representatives, (2) the right to elect their representatives 
by separate electorates, (3) the right to vote in the general electorates 
as well and (4) the right to weightage in representation. The 
following table shows the proportion of representation secured 
to the Muslims in the Legislatures by the Act of 1909 and the 
Regulations made thereunder : 

chap, xi] 




























a 0-3 












The provisions were applied to all Provinces except the Punjab 
and C. P. It was not applied to Punjab because such special 
protection was considered unnecessary for the Muhammadans of the 
Punjab and it was not applied to C. P. because it had no Legislative 
Council at the time.* 

In October 1916, 19 members of the Imperial Legislative 
Council presented the Viceroy (Lord Chelmsford) a memorandum 
demanding a reform of the Constitution. Immediately the Muslims 
came forward with a number of demands on behalf of the Muslim 
community. These were : 

(i) The extension of the principle of separate represent- 
ation to the Punjab and the C. P. 

(ii) Fixing the numerical strength of the Muslim 
representatives in the Provincial and Imperial Legislative 

(iii) Safegaurd against legislation affecting Muslims, 
their religion and religious usages. 

The negotiations following upon these demands resulted in an 
agreement between the Hindus and the Muslims and which is known 
as the Lucknow Pact. It may be said to contain two clauses. One 
ralated to legislation. By it it was agreed that - 

"No Bill, nor any clause thereof, nor a resolution introduced by 
a non-official affecting one or other community (which question is to 
be determined by the member of that community in the Legislative 
Council concerned) shall be procce led with, if threefourths of the 
members of that community in the particular Council, Imperial and 
Provincial, oppose the Bill or any clause thereof or the resolution/' 

The other clause related to the proportion of Muslim represent- 
ation. With regard to the Imperial Legislative Council the Pact 
provided : 

"That one-third of the Indian elected members should be 
Muhammadans, elected by separate electorates in the several 
Provinces, in the proportion, as nearly as might be, in which they 
were represented pn the provincial legislative councils by separate 
Muhamrnadan electorates." 

* The C, P. Legislative Council was established in 1914, 


In the matter of Muslim representation in the provincial 
legislative councils it was agreed that the proportion of Muslim 
representation should be as follows* : 

J/ei-centage of elected 
Indian Members. 

Punjab ... ... 50 

United Provinces ... ... 30 

Bengal ... ... 40 

Bihar ami Orissa ... ... 25 

Central Provinces ... ... 15 

Madras ... ... 15 

Bombay ... ... 33 j 

Wliile allowing this proportion of seats to the Muslims the 
right to a second vote in the general electorates which they had 
under the arrangement of 1909 was taken way. 

The Lucknow Pact was adversely criticized by the Montagu 
Chelmsford Report. But being an agreement between the parties 
Government did not like to reject it and substitute in its place its 
own decision. Both clauses of the agreement were accepted by 
Government and emboded in the Government of India Act of 1919. 
The clause relating to legislation was given effect to but in 
a different form. Instead of leaving it to the members of the 
Legislature to oppose it, it was provided f that legislation affecting 
the religion or religious rites and usages of any class of British 
subjects in India shall not be introduced at any meeting of either 
Chamber of the Indian Legislature without the previous sanction 
of the Governor-General. 

The clause relating to represcution was accepted by the 
Government though in the opinion of the Government, the Punjab and 
Bengal Muslims were not fairly treated. 

The effect of these concessions can be seen by reference to the 
composition of the Legislatures constituted under the Government 

of India Act 1919 which was as follows : 

* For somo reason the Pact did not settle the proportion of Muslim representation 
in Assam. 

f Government of India Act 1919, Section 67 (2) (6). 

Composition of the. Legislatures. 

[part iv 


Elected Members. 
















Legislative Assembly 







Council of State 








Madras Provincial Council . . . 








Bombay Provincial Council. 








Bengal Provincial Council... 








U. P. Provincial Council ... 








Punjab Provincial Cohncil. 








Bihar Provincial Council ... 









C. P. Provincial Council ... 








Assam Provincial Council... 








The extent of representation secured by the Muslims by the 
Lucknow Pact can be seen from the following table* : 

Legislative Body. 

of Moslems 
to total 
of the 
area (1921 

of Moslem 
members to 
total No. of 

of Moslem 
members to 
total No. of 

Percentage of 
Moslem members 
to total members' 
in seats filled by 
election from 
Indian general 

Luck now 






Punjab ... 






United Provinces . . . 












Bihar and Orissa 






Central Provinces ... 






Madras ... 






Bombay ... 






Assam ... 





No provision. 

Legislative Assembly 






* Statutory Commission 1929 Report Vol. I page 189. 

t Column 3 includes Indian n elected by special oonstituencies, e.g% Commerce, whose 
p of oouree vary slightly from time to time. Similarly column 2, 
nominated non-omcials, will show slightly different results at 


communal proportions may of oouree vary s; 
including also officials and non ' 

dfierent periods. 

Chap. Xij 



This table does not show quite clearly the weightage obtained by 
the Muslims under the Lucknow Pact It was worked out by the 
Government ot India in their despatch* on the Report of Franchise 
Committee of which Lord Southborough was the chairman. The 
following table is taken from that despatch which shows that the 
the Muslims got a weightage under the Lucknow Pact far in excess 
of what Government gave them in 1909. 

Muslim por- 
oentu^u ot 



Percentage of 
Muslim stiut 8 



(2) of (1). 



Bihj^r and Odssa 


Central Provinces 



United Provinces 







20 -i 















In 1927 the British Government announced the appointment 
of the Simon Commission to examine the working of the Indian 
Constitution and to suggest further reforms. Immediatly the Muslims 
came forward with further political demands. These demands were 
put forth from various Muslim platforms, such as the Muslim League, 
All-India Muslim Conference, All Parties Muslim Conference, 
Jamait-ul-Ulema and the Khilafat Conference. The demands were 
substantially the same. It would suffice to state those that were 
formulated by Mr. Jinnahf on behalf of the Muslim League. 

They were in the following terms : 

1. The form of the future Constitution should be federal 
with residuary powers vested in the provinces. 

2. A uniform measure of autonomy should be granted to 
all provinces. 

* Fifth despatch on Indian Constitutional Reforms (Franchises) dated 23rd April 1919 
para 21. 

t The demands are known as Mr. Jinnah's 14 points. As a, matter of fact they are 15 in 
number and were formulated at a meeting of Muslim leaders of ail shades of opinion held 
at Delhi in March 1927 and were known as the Delhi Proposals. For Mr. Jinnah'a explana- 
t ion of the origin of his 14 points eee All India Register 1929 Vol. I p. 367* 


3. All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies 
should be reconstituted on the definite principle of adequate 
and effective representation of minorities in every province 
without reducing the majority of any province to a minority 
or even equality. 

4. In the Central Legislature Muslim representation 
should not be less than one-third. 

5. The representation of communal groups should 
continue to be by means of separate electorates as at present, 
provided that it should be open to any community at any 
time to abandon its separate electorate in favour of joint 

6. Any territorial redistribution that might at any time 
be necessary shold not in any way affect the Muslim majority 
in the Punjab, Bengal and North- West Frontier Province. 

7. Full religious liberty, that is, liberty of belief, worship, 
observances, propaganda, association and education should be 
guaranteed to all communities. 

8. No bill or resolution, or any part thereof, should be 
passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three- 
fourths of the members of any community in that particular 
body oppose such a bill or resolution or part thereof on the 
ground that it would be injurious to the interests of that 
community or, in the alternative, such other method as may be 
devised or as may be found feasible and practicable to deal 
with such cases. 

9. Sind should be separated from the Bombay Presidency. 

10. Reforms should be introduced in the North- West 
Frontier Province and Baluchistan on the same footing as in 
other provinces. 

11. Provision should be made in the Constitution giving 
the Muslims an adequate share along with other Indians in 
all the Services of the State and in self-governing bodies, 
having due regard to the requirements of efficiency. 


12. The constitution should embody adequate safeguards 
for the protection of Muslim religion, culture and personal 
law, and the promotion of Muslim education, language, 
religion, personal laws, Muslim charitable institutions, and for 
their due share in grants-in-aici given by the State and by self- 
governing bodies. 

13. No cabinet, either Central or Provincial, should be 
formed without there being a proportion of Muslim Ministers 
of at least one-third. 

14. No change to be made in the Constitution by the 
Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the States 
constituting the Indian Federation. 

15. That in the present circumstances the representation 
of Musalmans in the different legislatures of the country and 
of the other elected bodies through separate electorates is 
inevitable, and, further, Government being pledged not to 
deprive the Musalmans of this right, it cannot be taken away 
without their consent, and so long as the Musalmans are not 
satisfied that their rights arid interests are safeguarded in the 
manner specified above (or herein) they would in no way 
consent to the establishment of joint electorates with or 
without conditions. 

Note : The question of excess representation of Musalmans 
over and above their population in the provinces where they are in 
minority to be considered hereafter. 

This is a consolidated statement of Muslim demands. In it there 
are some which are old, and there are some which are new. The 
old ones are included because the aim is to retain the advantages 
accruing therefrom. The new ones are added in order to remove 
the weaknesses in the Muslim position. The new ones are five in 
number : (i) Representation in proportion to population to Muslim 
majorities in the Punjab and Bengal. (2) One-third represen- 
tation to Muslims in the cabinets both Central and Provincial. 

(3) Adequate representation of Muslims in the Services, 

(4) Separation of Sind from the Bombay Presidency and the raising 
of N. W. F. and Baluchistan to the status of self-governing provinces, 
and (5) Vesting of residuary powers in the Provinces and not in 
the Central Government. 


These demands are self-explanatory except perhaps i, 4 and 5* 
The object of demands I and 4 was to place, in four provinces, the 
Muslim community in a statutory majority where it had only 
communal majority, as a force counteracting the six provinces in which 
the Hindu community happened to be in a majority. This was insisted 
upon on the ground that it would in itself constitute a guarantee of 
good treatment by both the communities of its minorities. The 
object of demand No. 5 was to guarantee Muslim rule in Sind. 
N. W. F., the Punjab and Bengal. But a Muslim majorily rule in 
these Muslim Provinces it was feared would not be effective if they 
remained under the control of the Central Government which could 
not but be in the hand of the Hindus. To free the Muslim 
Provinces from the control of the Hindu Government at the Centre 
was the object for which demand No. 5 was put forth. 

These demands were opposed by the Hindus. There may not 
be much in this. But what is significant is that they were also 
rejected by the Simon Commission. The Simon Commission, 
which was by no means unfriendly to the Muslims, gave some 
very cogent reasons for rejecting the Muslim demands. It said* : 

(t This claim goes to the length of seeking to preserve the full 
security for representation now presided for Moslems in these six 
provinces and at the same time to enlarge in Bengal and the Punjab 
the present proportion of seats secured to the community by 
separate electorates to figures proportionate to their ratio of population. 
This would give Muhammadans a fixed and unalterable majority of 
the "general constituency" seats in both provinces. We cannot go 
so far. The continuance of the present scale of weightage in the 
six provinces could not in the absence of a new general agreement 
between the communities equitably be combined with so great 
a departure from the existing allocation in Bengal and the Punjab. 

" It would be unfair that Muhammadans should retain the very 
considerable weightage they enjoy in the six provinces, and that there 
should at the same time be imposed, in face of Hindu and Sikh 
opposition^ a definite Moslem majority in the Punjab and Bengal 
unalterable by any appeal to the electorate " 

But not withstanding the opposition of the Hindus and the 
Sikhs and the rejection by the Simon Commission, the British 

* Report Vol. II page 71 


Government when called upon to act as an arbiter granted the 
Muslims all their demands old and new. 

By a Notification* in the Gazette of India dated 25th January 
1932 the Government of India, in exorcise of the powers conferred by 
sub-section (2) of section 52 A of the Government of India 
Act 1919, declared that the N. W. F. Province shall be treated as 
a Governor's Provincct- By an Order in Council, issued under the 
provisions contained in sub-section (i) of section 289 of the 
Government of India Act of 1935, Sincl was separated from Bombay 
as from ist April 1936 and duclaiecl to be a Governor's Province 
to be known as the Province of Sind. By the Resolution issued by 
the Secretary of State for India and published on 7th July 1934 the 
Muslim share in the public services was fixed at 25 per cent, of all 
appointments Imperial and Provincial*. With regard to residuary 
powers, it is true that the Muslim demand that; they should be vested 
in the Provinces was not accepted. But in another sense the Muslim 
demand in this respect must be deemed to have been granted. The 
essence of the Muslim demand was that the residuary powers should 
not be vested in the Centre, which, put in different language, meant 
that it should not be in the hands of the Hindus. This is precisely 
what is done by section 104 of the Government of India Act 1935 which 
vests the residuary powers in the Governor General to be exercised 
in his discretion. With regard to the demand for 33^ per cent, 
representation in the cabinets Central and Provincial the same was 
not given effect to by a legal provision in the Act. But if convention 
counts for anything then not only the right of Muslims to representation 
in the cabinets was accepted by the British Government but provision 
for giving effect to it was made in the instruments of Instructions 
issued to the Governors and Governor General. As to the remaining 
demand which related to a statutory majority in the Punjab and 
Bengal the demand was given effect to by the Communal Award. 

* Notification No. F. 173/31- H in the (Jazetlo of India Kx'tr.vovdinary dated 25th 
January 1U32. 

f Tho Simon Commission bad rejected the claim saying " Wo entirely share the view 
of the Bray Committee that _ provision oujrht now to he mrxde for the constitutional advance 

of the N. W. F. P .But we also agree that the situation of the Province and its 

intimate relation with the problem of Indian defence are such that special arrangements are 
required. It is not possible, therefore, to apply to it automatically proposals which may be 
suited for provincial areas iu other parts of India.'' They justified it by saying :*' The 
inherent right of a naau to emoke a ci^-aratte mutt necessarily be curtailed if he lives in 
a powder magazine Report Vol. II, paras. 120-121. 



True, a statutory majority over the whole House, has not been given 
to the Muslims and could not be given having regard to the necessity 
for providing representation to other interests. But a statutory 
majority as against Hindus has been given to the Muslims of Punjab 
and Bengal without touching the weightages obtained by the Muslim 
minorities under the Lucknow Pact. 

These political grants to the Muslim community by the British 
Government lacked security and it was feared by the Muslims that 
pressure might be brought upon them or upon His Majesty's 
Government by the Hindus to alter the terms of the grants 
to the prejudice of the Muslims. This fear was due to two reasons. 
One was the success of Mr. Gandhi in getting that part of the 
Award which related to the Depressed Classes revised by means 
of the pressure of fast unto death *. Some people cncourgcd by this 
success actually agitated for a revision of that part of the Award 
which related to the Muslims and some Muslims were even found to be 
in favour of entering into such negotiations f- This alarmed the 
Muslim Community. The other reason for the fear of revision of the 
terms of the grants arose out of certain amendments in the clauses 
in the Government of India Bill which were made in the House of 
Commons permitting such revision under certain conditions. To 
remove these fears and to give complete security to the Muslims 
against hasty and hurried revision of the grants His Majesty's 
Government authorized the Government of India to issue the 
following communique J : 

" It has come to the notice of His Majesty's Government that the 
impression is prevalent that what is now Clause 304 of the Government 
of India Bill (numbered 285 in the Bill as first introduced and 299 in 
the Bill as amended by the Commons in Committee) has been amended 
during the passage of the Bill through the Commons in such a way as 
to give His Majesty's Government unfettered power to alter at any time 
they may think fit the constitutional provisions based upon what is 
commonly known as Government's Communal Award. 

* This resulted in the Poona Pact which \vas signed on 2<Ath September 1932. 

f FOP tho efforts to get the Muslim part of the Award revised See All-India Register 
1932 Vol. H pp, 281315. 

$ Th9 Comflcmnique is dated Simla July 2, 1935 


" His Majesty's Government think it desirable to give the following 
brief explanation both of what they consider is the practical effect of 
Clause 304 in relation to any change in the Communal Award and of 
their own policy in relation to any such change. 

" Under this Clause there is conferred 011 the Governments and 
Legislatures in India, after the expiry of ten years, the right of initiating 
a proposal to modify the provisions and regulating various matters 
relating to the constitution of the Legislature, including such questions 
as were covered by the Communal Award. 

" The Clause also imposes on the Secretary of State the duty of 
laying before Parliament from the Governor General or the Governor as 
the case may be his opinion us to the proposed amendment and in 
particular as to the effect which it would have on the interests of any 
minority and of informing Parliament of any action which he proposed 
to take. 

" Any change in the constitutional Provisions resulting from this 
procedure can be effected by an Order in Council, but this is subject to 
the proviso that the draft of the propose,! Order has been affirmatively 
approved by both Houses of Parliament by a resolution. This 
condition is secured by Clause 305 of the 13-11. 

" Before the expiry of ten. years there is no similar constitutional 
initiative residing in the Governments and the Legislatures of India. 
Power is, however, conferred by the Clause to make such a change by 
an Order in Council (always with the approval of both Houses of 
Parliament) even before the end of ten 3^e:irs, but within, the first ten 
years (and indeed subsequently, if the initiative has not come from 
the Legislatures of India) it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State 
to consult the Governments and the Legislatures of India who will be 
affected (unless the change is of a minor character) before any Order 
in Council is laid before Parliament for its approval. 

" The necessity for the powers referred to in the preceding paragraph 
is clue to such reasons as the following : 

It is impossible to foresee when the necessity may arise 
for amending minor details connected with the franchise and the 
constitution of legislatures, and for such amendment it will be 
clearly disadvantageous to have * no method available short of 
a fresh amending Act of Parliament, nor is it practicable statutorily 
to separate such details from the more important matter such as 
the terms of the Communal Award ; 


" (b) It might also become desirable, in the event of 
a unanimous agreement between the communities in India, to make 
a modification in the provisions based on the Communal Award ; 
and for such an agreed change it would also be disadvantageous to 
have no other metho I available than an amending Act of 

" Within the range of the Communal Award His Majesty's 
Government would not propose, in the exercise of any power conferred 
by this Clause, to recommend to Parliament any change unless such 
changes had been agree:! to between the communities concerned. 

tc In conclusion, His Majesty's Government would again emphasise 
the fact that none of the powers in Clause 304 can, in view of the 
provisions in Clause 305, be exercised unless both Houses of Parliament 
agreed by an affirmative resolution. " 

After taking into account what the Muslims demanded at the 
R.T. C. and what was conceded to them any one could have thought that 
the limit of Muslim demands was reached and that the 1932 settlement 
was a final settlement But it appears that even with this the Musalmans 
are not satisfied. A further list of new demands for safeguarding the 
Muslim position seems to be ready. In the controversy that went 
on between Mr. Jinnah and the Congress in the year 1938 Mr. Jinnah 
was asked to disclose his demands which he refused to do. But 
these demands have come to the surface in the correspondence that 
passed between Pandit Nehru and Mr. Jinnah in the course of the 
controversy and they have been tabulated by Pandit Nehru in one 
of his letters to Mr. Jinnah. His tabulation gives the following 
as items in dispute and requiring settlement* : 

(1) The fourteen points formulated by the Muslim League 
in 1929. 

(2) The Congress should withdraw all opposition to the 
Communal Award and should not describe it as a negation 
of nationalism. 

(3) The share of the Muslims in the state services should 
be definitely fixed in the constitution by statutory enactment. 

(4) Muslim personal law and culture should be guaranteed 
by statute. 

* Indian Annual Register 1938 VoL I p. 309, 


(5) The Congress should take in hand the agitation in 
connection with the Sahidganj Mosque and should use its 
moral pressure to enable the Muslims to gain possession of 
the Mosque. 

(6) The Muslims' right to call A/.an and perform their 
religious ceremonies should not be fettered in any way. 

(7) Muslims should have freedom to perform cow- 

(8) Muslim majorities in the provinces, where such 
majorities exist at present, must not be affected by any 
territorial re-distribution or adjustments. 

(9) The < Bande Mataram ' song should be given up. 

(10) Muslims want Urdu to be the national language of 
India and they desire to have statutory guarantees that the use 
of Urdu shall not be curtailed or damaged. 

(11) Muslim representation in the local bodies should be 
governed by the principles underlying the Communal Award, 
that is, separate electorates and population strength. 

(12) The tricolour Flag should be changed or alternately 
the flag of the Muslim League should be given equal 

(13) Recognition of the Muslim League as the one 
authoritative and representative organization of Indian 

(14) Coalition Ministries should be formed. 

With this new list there is no knowing where the Muslims are 
going to stop in their demands. Within one year, that is between 
1938 and 1939, one more demand and that too of a substantial character 
namely 50 per cent, share in everything has been added to it 
In this catalogue of new demands there arc some which on the 
face of them are extravagant and impossible, if not irresponsible. 
As an instance, one may refer to the demand for fifty fifty and the 
demand for the recognition of Urdu as the national language 
of India. In 1929 the Muslims insisted that in alloting seats 
in Legislatures a majority shall not be reduced to a minority 


or equality.* This principle, enunciated by themselves, it is 

new demanded, shall be abandoned and a majority shall be reduced 

to equality. The Muslims in 1929 admitted that the other 

minorities required protection and that they must have it in 

the same manner as the Muslims. The only distinction made 

between the Muslims and other minorities was as to the extent of the 

protection. The Muslims claimed a higher degree of protection 

than was conceded to the other minorities on the ground of there 

political importance. But as to the necessity and adequacy of 

protection for the other minorities the Muslims never denied it. 

But with this new demand of 50 per cent, the Muslims are not only 

seeking to reduce the Hindu majority to a minority but they arc 

also cutting into the political rights of the other minorities. The 

Muslims are now speaking the language of Hitler and claiming a place 

in the Sun which Hitler has been claiming for Germany. For 

their demand for 50 per cent, is nothing but a counterpart: of the 

German claims for Deuchland Ubcr Alles and LvbunsntU'm for 

themselves, irrespective of what happens to other minoritiess. 

Their claim for the recognition of Urdu as to the national 
language of India is equally extravagant. Urdu is not only not 
spoken all over India but it is not even the language of all the 
Musalmans of India. Of the 68 millions of Muslims [' only 28 millions 
speak Urdu. The proposal of making Urdu a national language 
means that the language of 28 millions of Muslims is to be imposed 
particularly upon 40 millions of Musalmans or generally upon 
322 millions of Indians. 

It will thus be seen that every time a proposal for the reform 
of the constitution comes forth, the Muslims are there, ready 
with some new political demand or demands. The only check 
upon such indefinite expansion of Muslim demands is the power 
of the British Government, which must be the final arbiter in 
any dispute between the Hindus and the Muslims. But who can 
confidently say that the decision of the British will not be in 
favour of the Muslims if the dispute relating to these new demands 
was referred to them for arbitration ? Just as the Muslim demands 

* See point No. 3 in Mr. Jinnah's 14 points, 
f These figures relate to the Census of 1921. 


are endless so also, the British seem to be becoming powerless to put 
a curb on them. At any rate past experience shows that the British 
have been inclined to give the Mustims more than what the Muslims 
had themselves asked. Two such instances can be cited. 

One of these relates to the Lucknow Pact. The question was 
whether the British Government should accept the Pact. The 
author of the Montagu Chelmsford Report were disinclined to 
accept it for reasons which were very weighty. Speaking of the 
wcightagcs granted to the Muslims by the Lucknow Pact the authors 
of the Joint-Report observed* : 

" Now a privileged position of tin's hind is open to the objection, that 
if any other community hereafter makes <>;ood a claim to separate 
representation, it can be satisfied only by deduction from the Non- 
Muslim scau-i, or by a rateable deduction from both Muslim and 
Non-Muslim ; and Hindu and Alnslim opinions are not likely to agree 
which process should be adopted. While, therefore, for reasons that 
we explain subesequontly we assent to the maintenance of separate 
representation for Muhammad: ins, we are bound to reserve our approval 
of the particular proposals set before us, until we have ascertained what 
the effect upon other interests will be, and have made fair provision 
for them. 

Notwithstanding this grave flaw in the Lucknow Pact the 
Government of India, in its despatch referred to above, recommended 
that the terms of the Pact should be improved in so far as it related 
to the Muslims of Bengal. Its reasons make a strange reading. It 
argued that : 

"The Muhammadan representation which they [the authors of the 
Pact] propose for Bengal is manifestly insufficient.! It is questionable 
whether the claims of the Miih.unmadan population of Eastern Bengal 
were adequately pressed when the Congress-League compact was in 
the making. They are conspicuously a backward and impoverished 
community. The repartition of the presidency in 1912 came as 
a severe disappointment to them, and we should be very loath to fail 
in seeing that their interests are now generously secured. In order to 

* Montagu CheLnsford Report 1918. para. 103. 

f The Government of India also felt that injustice was done to Punjab as woll. But as 
there was no such special reason as there was in the case of Bengal namelr the unsettling of 
the partition they did noL propose any augraention in its representation as settled by tho 


give the Bengal Muslims a representation proportionate to their numbers, 
and no more, we should allot them 44 instead of 34 seats [due to them 
under the Pact]." 

This enthusiasm for the Bengal Muslims shown by the Govern- 
ment of India was not shared by the British Government. It felt that 
as the number of seats given to the Bengal Muslims was the result 
of an agreement, any interference to improve the bargain when there 
was no dispute about the genuineness of the agreement, could not 
but create the impression that the British Government was in some 
special sense and for some special reason the friend of the Muslims. 
In suggesting this augmentation in the scats the Government of 
India forgot to take note of the reason why the Muslims of Punjab 
and Bengal were not given by the Pact seats in proportion to 
their population. The Lucknow Pact was based upon the principle, 
now thrown to the winds, that a community as such was not entitled 
to political protection. A community was entitled to protection 
when it was in a minority. That was the principle underlying 
the Lucknow Pact. The Muslim Community in the Punjab and 
Bengal was not in a minority and therefore was not entitled 
to the same protection which it got in other Provinces where 
it was in a minority. Notwithstanding their being in a majority 
the Muslims of Punjab and Bengal felt the necessity of separate 
electorates. According to the principle underlying the Pact 
they could qualify themselves for this only by becoming a minority 
which they did by agreeing to a minority of seats. This is the 
reason why the Muslims of Bengal and the Punjab did not get the 
majority of seats they were entitled to on the population basis.* 

The proposal of the Government of India to give to the Bengal 
Muslims more than what they had asked for did not go through. 
But the fact that they wanted to do so remains as evidence of their 

*There is 110 doubt that this was well understood by the Muslims who were parties to tho 
Pact, This is what Mr. Jitmali said as a witness appearing befoi'e the Joint Select- 
Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Bill 1919 in reply to 
question No. 3808 : T^'e position of Bengal was this : In Bengal the Moslems are in 
a majority, and the argument was advanced that any section or any community -which is ill 
the majority cannot claim a separate electorate : separate electorate is to protect the 
minority. But the counter- argument was perfectly true that numerically we are in 
a maiority but aa voters wo are In the minority ih Bengal, because of poverty, and 
backwardness and so on. It was said : Very well, then fix 40 per cent, because if you aro 
really put to te?t you will not get 40 per cent, because you win not be qualified a^s 
we liftd t&e advantage in other Provinces," 


The second occasion when the British Government as an 
arbiter gave the Muslims more than they asked for was when the 
Communal Decision was given in 1932. Sir Muhammad Shafi 
made two different proposals in the Minorities Sub-Committee of 
the R. T. C. In his speech on January 6th, 1931 Sir Muhammad 
Shafi put forth the following proposal in the interest of communal 
settlement* : 

" We are prepared to accept joint electorates on the conditions 
named by me : Firstly, that the rights at present enjoyed by the 
Musalmans in the minority Provinces should be continued to them ; 
that in the Punjab and in Bengal they should have two joint electorates 
and representation on a population basis ; that there should be the 
principle of reservation of seats coupled with Moulana Mahommad All's 
condition.! " 

In his speech on I4th January 1931 before the same committee 
he made a different offer. He saidf : 

"To-day I am authorized to make this offer : that in the Punjab 
the Musalmans should have through communal electorates 49 per cent, 
of the entire number of seats in the whole House, and should have 
liberty to contest the special constituencies which it is proposed to 
create in that Province : so far as Bengal is concerned that Musalmans 
should have through communal electorates 46 per cent, representation 
in the whole House, and should have the liberty to contest the special 
constituencies which it is proposed to create in that Province ; in so 
far as the Minority Provinces are concerned, the Musalmans should 
continue to enjoy the weightage which they have at present through 
separate electorates, similar weightage to be given to our Hindu 
brethren in Siiid, and to our Hindu and Sikh brethren in the North-West 
Frontier Province. If at any time hereafter two-thirds of the 
representatives of any community in any Provincial Legislative Council 
or in the Central Legislative Council desire to give up communal 
electorates and to accept joint electorates then thereafter the system 
of joint electorates, should come into being/' 

* Report of the Minorities Subcommittee of the first R. T. C. (Indian Kdition) p. 96, 

t Mr. Mahamad Ali's formula was for ioirit electorates and reserved seats with this 
priviso that no candidate shall be declared elected unless he had secured at least 40 per cent 
of the votes of his own community and at least 5 or 10 per cent of the votes of tn 

t Ibid p. 123, 


The difference between the two proposals was clear* Joint 
electorates, if accompanied by statutory majority. If statutory 
majority is refused, then a minority of seats with separate electorates. 
The British Government took statutory majority from the first demand 
and separate electorates from the second demand and gave the 
Muslims both when they had not asked for both. 

The second thing that is noticeable among the Muslims is the 
spirit of exploiting the weaknesses of the Hindus. If the Hindus 
object to anything then the Muslim policy seems to be to insist upon 
it and give it up only when the Hindus show themselves ready to 
offer a price for it by giving the Muslims some other concessions. 
As an illustration of this one can refer to the question of separate 
and joint electorates. The Hindus have been to my mind utterly 
foolish in fighting over joint electorates especially in Provinces in 
which the Muslims are in a minority. Joint electorates can never 
suffice for a basis for nationalism. Nationalism is not a matter of 
political nexus or cash nexus, for the simple reason that union can- 
not be the result of calculation of mere externals. Where two 
communities live a life which is exclusive and self-inclosed for five 
years they will not be one because they are made to come together 
on one day in five years for the purposes of voting in an election. 
Joint electorates may produce the enslavement of the minor 
community by the major community : but by themselves they 
cannot produce nationalism. Be that as it may, because the Hindus 
have been insisting upon joint electorates the Muslims have been 
insisting upon separate electorates. That this insistance is a matter 
of bargain only can be seen from Mr. Jinnah's 14 points* and the 
Resolution t passed in the Calcutta Session of the All-India Muslim 
League held on 3Oth December 1927. Therein it was stipulated 
that only when the Hindus agreed to the separation of Sind and 
to the raising of the N. W. F. to the status of a self-governing 
Province that the Musalmans would consent to give up separate 
electorates.^; The Musalmans evidently did not regard separate 

* See point No. 15 in Mr. Jinnahs' points. 

t For the Resolution and the speech of Mr. Barkat AH thereon see the Indian Quarterly 
Register 1927 Vol. H page 447-48. 

The -unfortunate thing for the Hindus is that they did not get joint electorates 
Mu^salmans got the concession^, 


electorates as vital. They regarded them as a good quid pro qito 
for obtaining their other claims. If this is not a bargain it is difficult 
to find one which is. 

An other illustration of this spirit of exploitation is furnished by 
the Muslim insistance upon cow-slaughter and the stoppage of music 
before mosque. Islamic law does not insist upon the slaughter of the 
cow for sacrificial purposes and no Musalman when he goes to Haj 
sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in India they will not be 
content with the sacrifice of any other animal. Music before mosque 
is played in all Muslim countries without any objection. Even in 
Afghanistan which is not a secularized country no objection is 
taken to music before mosque. But in India the Musalmans must 
insist upon its stoppage because the Hindus claim a right to it. 

The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims 
of the gangsters 7 methods in politics. The riots are a sufficient 
indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in 
politics. They seem to be consciously and deliberately imitating 
the Sudeten Germans in the means employed by them against the 
Czechs.* So long the Muslims were the aggressors. The Hindus 
were passive and in the conflict they suffered more than the Muslims 
did. But this is no longer true. The Hindus have learned to retaliate 
and no longer feel any compunction in knifing a Musalman. This 
spirit of retaliation bids fare to produce the ugly spectacle of 
gangsterism against gangsterism. 

How to meet this problem -must exercise the minds of -all 
concerned. There are the simple-minded Hindu Maha Sabha 
patriots who believe that the Hindus have only to make up their 
minds to swipe the Musalmans and they will be brought to their 
senses. On the other hand there are the Congress Hindu Nationalists 
whose policy is to tolerate and appease the Musalmans by political 
and other concessions, because they believe that they cannot reach 
their cherished goal of independence unless the Musalmans back 
their demand. The Hindu Maha Sabha plan is no way to unity. 

* In the Karachi Session oi the All-India Muslim League both Mr. Jiiinah and Sir 
Abdullah Haroon compared the Muslims of India as tho " Studcten " of the Muslim world 
and capable of doing what the Studeten Germans did to Czechoslovakia. 


On the contrary it is a sure block to progress. The slogan of the 
Hindu Maha Sabha President Hindustan for Hindus is not 
merely arrogant but is arrant nonsense. Question however is, is the 
Congress way the right way ? It seems to me that the Congress 
has failed to realize two things. The first thing which the Congress 
has failed to realise is the fact that there is a difference between 
appeasement and settlement and that the difference is an essential 
one. Appeasement means to offer to buy off the aggressor by 
conciving at or collaborating with him in the rape, murder and 
arson on innocent Hindus who happen for the moment to be the 
victims of his displeasure. On the other hand settlement means 
laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. 
Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the 
aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has 
failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased their 
aggressiveness and what is worse the Muslims interpret these 
concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and 
the absence of will to resist. This policy of appeasement will 
involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies 
found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they 
adopted towards Hitler. This is another malaise, no less acute than 
the malaise of social stagnation. Appeasement will surely aggravate 
it. The only remedy for it is settlement. If Pakistan is a settlement 
then as a remedy it is worth consideration. For as a settlement it will 
do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be 
welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and trail quility of 
a settlement to the insecurity of a growing political appetite shown 
by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus. 


Suppose an Indian was asked, what is the highest destiny you 
wish for your county, what would be his answer ? The question is 
important and the answer cannot but he instructive. 

There can be no doubt that other things being equal, a hundred 
percent Indian, proud of his country, would say " An integral and 
independent India is my ideal of Indias destiny. " But it will be 
equally true to say that unless this destiny was accepted by both, 
Hindus as well as Muslims the ideal can only convey a pious wish. 
It cannot take a concrete form. Is it only a pious wish of some or 
is it cherished by all ? 

So far as profession of political aims go, all parties seem to be 
in agreement in as much as all of them have declared that the goal 
of India's political evolution is Independence. The Congress was 
the first to announce that its aim was to achieve political independ- 
ence for India. In its Madras Session, held in December 1927, the 
creed of the Congress was defined in a special resolution to the 
effect that the goal of the Indian people was complete national 
independence. The Hindu Maha Sabha until 1932 was content to 
have Responsible Government as the goal of India's political evolution. 
It made no change in its political creed till 1937 when in its 
session held at Ahamadabad it declared that the Hindu Maha Sabha 
believed in " Poorna Swaraj " that is, absolute political independence 
for India. The Muslim League declared its political creed in 1912 
to be the establishment of Responsible Government in India. In 1937 
k made a similar advance by changing its creed from Responsible 


Government to Independence and thereby brought itself in line 
with the Congress and the Hindu Maha Sabha. 

This independence defined by the three political bodies means 
freedom from British Imperialism. But an agreement on freedom 
from the yoke of British Imperialism is not enough. There must be 
an agreement upon maintaining an Independent India. For this 
there must be an agreement that India shall not only be free and 
independent of the British but that her freedom and independence 
shall be maintained as against any other foreign power. Indeed the 
obligation to maintain her freedom is more important than merely 
winning freedom from the British. But on this more important 
obligation there does not seem to be the same unanimity. At any 
rate the attitude of the Muslims on this point has not been very 
assuring. Indeed it is obvious from the numerous utterances of 
Muslim leaders that they do not accept the obligation to maintain 
India's freedom I give below two such utterances. 

In a meeting held in Lahore in 1925 Dr. Kitchlew said* : 

"The Congress was lifeless till the Khilafat Committee put life 
in it. When the Khilafat Committee joined it, it did in one j^ear what 
the Hindu Congress had not done in 40 years. The Congress also 
did the work of uplifting the seven crores of untouchables. This was 
purely a work for the Hindus, and yet the money of the Congress was 
spent on it. Mine and my Musalman brethren's money was spent on 
it like water. But the brave Musalmans did not mind. Then why 
should the Hindus quarrel with us when we Musalmans take up the 
Tanzim work and spend on it money that belongs neither to the 
Hindus nor to the Congress ? " 

" If we remove British rule from this country and establish Swaraj, 
and if the Afghans or other Muslims invade India, then we Moslems 
will oppose them and sacrifice all our sons in order to save the 
country from the invasion. But one thing I shall declare plainly. 
Listen, my dear Hindu brothers, listen very attentively ! If you 
put obstacles in the path of our Tanzim movement, and do not give 
us our rights, we shall make common cause with Afghanistan or some 
other Musalman power and establish our rule in this country. " 

Maulana Azad Sobhani in his speechf made on the 27th January 
1939 at Sylhet expressed sentiments which are worthy of attention. 

* " Ehrpugb Indian Eyes." Tinaes of India dated 14-3-25 

f The Bengali version of the speech appeared in the Anand Bazar Patrika. The English 
reraioa of it giveo here IB a translation made for me by the Editor of the Hindustan Standard* 


In reply to the question of a Maulana, Maulana Azad Sobhani said, 
" If there is any eminent leader in India who is in favour of driving 
out the English from this country, then 1 am that leader. Inspite of 
this I want that there should be no fight with the English on behalf 
of the Moslem League. Our big fight is with the 22 crores of our 
Hindu enemies, who constitute the majority. Only 4^ crores of 
Englishmen have practically swallowed the whole world by becoming 
powerful. And if these 22 crores of Hindus who ate equally advanced 
in learning, intelligence and wealth as in numbers, if they become 
powerful, then these Hindus will swallow Moslem India and gradually 
even Egypt, Turkey, Kabul, Mecca, Medina and other Moslem 
principalities, like Yujuj-Majuj ( it is so mentioned in the Koran that 
before the destruction of the world, they will appear on the earth and 
will devour whatever they will find). 

" The English are gradually becoming weak they will go away 

from India in the near future. So if \ve do not fight the greatest enemies 
of Islam, the Hindus, from now on and make them weak, then they 
will not only establish Ramrajya in India but also gradually spread 
all over the world. It depends on the 9 crores of Indian Moslems 
either to strengthen or to weaken them (the Hindus). So it is the 
essential duty of every devout Moslem to fight on by joining the 
Moslem League so that the Hindus may not be established here and 
a Moslem rule may be established in India as soon as the English 

Though the English are the enemies of the Moslems, yet for 
the present our fight is not with the English. At first we have to 
come to some understanding with the Hindus through the Moslem 
League. Then we shall be easily able to drive out the English and 
establish Moslem rule in India. 

Be careful ! iDon't fall into the trap of Congress Maulvis ; because 
the Moslem world is never safe in the hands of 22 crores of Hindu 
enemies. " He then narrated various imaginary incidents of 
oppressions on Moslems in Congress provinces. He said that when 
the Congress accepted ministry after the introduction of Provincial 
Autonomy, he felt that Moslem interests were not safe in the hands 
of the Hindu-dominated Congress ; but the Hindu leaders felt 
indifferently and so he left the Congress and joined the League. 
What he had feared has been put in reality by the Congress ministers. 
This forestalling of the future is called politics. He was, therefore, 
a great politician. He was again thinking that before India became 
independent some sort of understanding had to be arrived at with 


Hindus either by force or in a friendly way* Otherwise, the Hindus 
who had been the slaves of the Moslems for 700 years, would enslavo 
the Moslems. " 

The Hindus are aware of what is passing in the mind of the 
Muslims and dread the possibility of Muslims using independence to 
enslave them. As a result Hindus are lukewarm towards making 
independence as the goal of India's political evolution. These are 
not the fears of those who are not qualified to judge. On the 
contrary the Hindus who have expressed their apprehensions as to 
the wisdom of heading for independence are those who are 
eminently qualified by their contact with Muslim leaders to 
express an opinion. 

Mrs. Annie Besant says* : 

" Another serious question arises with regard to the Muhammadans 
of India. If the relation between Muslims and Hindus were as it 
was in the Lucknow days, this question would not be so urgent, 
though it would even then have almost certainly arisen, sooner or 
later, in an Independent India. But since the Khilafat agitation, 
things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries 
inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that 
the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against "unbelievers " has sprung 
up, naked and unashamed, as in 3 r ears gone by. We have seen 
revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion of the 
sword, we have seen the dragging out of centuries of forgetfulness, the 
old exclusivenss, claiming the Jazirut-Arab, the island of Arabia, as 
a holy land which may not be trodden by the polluting foot of 
a non-Muslim ; we have heard Muslim leaders declare that if the 
Afghans invaded India, they would join their fellow believers, and 
would slay the Hindus who defended their motherland against the 
foe ; we have been forced to see that the primary allegiance of 
Mussalmans is to Islamic countries, not to our motherland ; we 
have learned that their dearest hope is to establish the "Kingdom of 
God ", not God as Father of the world, loving all his creatures, but as 
a God seen through Mussalman spectacles resembling in his command 
through one of the prophets, as to the treatment of unbeliever the 
Mosaic JRHOVA of the early Hebrews, when they were fighting as 
did the early Muslims, for freedom to follow the religion given to 
them by theii prophet. The world has gone beyond such so-called 

* Thq Future of Indian Politics, pages 301 305, 


theocracies, in which, God's commands are given throi^jh a man. 
The claim now put forward by Mussalman leaders that they must 
obey the laws of their particular prophet above the laws of the State 
in which they live, is subversive of civic order and the stability of 
the State ; it makes them bad citizens for their centre of allegiance is 
outside the Nation and they cannot, while they hold the views 
proclaimed by Moulana Mahomed Ali and Shaukat Ali, to name 
the most prominent of these Muslim leaders, be trusted by their 
fellow citizens. If India were independent the Muslim part of the 
population for the ignorant masses would follow those who 
appealed to them in the name of their prophet would become an 
immediate peril to India's freedom. Allying themselves with 
Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Persia, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey and Egypt a*>d 
with such of the tribes of Central Asia who are Mussalmans, they 
would rise to place India under the Rule of Islam those in 
"British India " being helped by the Muslims in Indian States and 
would establish Mussalman rule. We had thought that Indian 
Mussalmans weie loyal to their Motherland, and indeed, we still 
hope that some of the educated class might strive to prevent such 
a Mussaltnaii rising ; but they are too few for effective resistance and 
would be murdered as apostates. Malabar has taught us what Islamic 
rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the 
"Khilafat Raj" in India. How much sympathy with the Moplas 
is felt by Muslims outside Malabar has been proved by the defence 
raised for them by their fellow believers, and by Mr. Gandhi himself, 
who stated that they had acted as they believed that there religion 
taught them to act. I fear that that is true ; but there is no place in 
a civilised land for people who believe that their religion teaches 
them to rnurder, rob, rape, burn, or drive away out of the country 
those who refuse to apostatise from their ancestral faiths, except in its 
schools, under surveillance, or in its goals. The Thugs believed that 
their particular form of God commanded them to strangle people 
especially travellers with money. Such "Laws of God" cannot be 
allowed to override the laws of a civilised country, and people living 
in the twentieth century must either educate people who hold these 
Middle Age views, or else exile them. Their place is in countries 
sharing their opinions, where they can still use such arguments agai&st 
any who differ from them as indeed, Persia and with the Parsis 
long ago, and the Bahaists in our own time. In fact, Muslim sects 
are not safe in a country ruled by orthodox Muslims. British rule in 
India has protected the freedom of all sects : Shiahs, Sunnis, Sufis, 
Bahaists, live in safety under her sceptre, although it cannot protect 


any of them from social ostracism, where it is in a minority. 
Mussalmans are more free under British rule, than in countries where 
there are Muslim rulers. In thinking of an independent India, the 
menace of Mohamedan rule has to be considered." 

Similar fear was expressed by Lala Lajpatrai in a letter* to 
Mr. C. R. Das : 

" There is one point more which has been troubling me very much 
of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the 
question of Hindu-Mohamedan unity. I have devoted most of my 
time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and 
Muslim Law and I am inclined to think, it is neither possible 
nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the 
Mohamedan leaders in the Non- co-operation movement, I think 
their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. You 
remember the conversation, I reported to you in Calcutta, which I had 
with Hakim Ajmalkhan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer 
Mohamedan in Hindustan than Hakimsaheb but can any other 
Muslim leader override the Quran ? I can only hope thut my 
reading of Islamic Law is incorrect, and nothing would relieve me 
more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it 
comes to this that although we can unite against the British, we 
cannot do so to rule Hindusthan on British lines, we cannot do so to 
rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is then the remedy ? 
I am not afraid of seven crores in Hindusthan but I think the seven 
crores of Hindustan plus the armed hosts of Afghanistan, Central 
Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible. I do 
honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of 
Hindu-Muslim Unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Moslem 
leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Quran and Hadis ? 
The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed ? I hope 
not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way 
out of this difficulty." 

In 1924 the editor of a Bengalee paper had an interview with 
the poet Dr. Ravindra Nath Tagore. The report of this interview 
stalest : 

" another very important factor which, according to the 

Poet, was making it almost impossible for the Hindu-Mohamedan 
unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohamedans 

* Quoted in Life of Savarkar by Indra Prakash. 

| Quoted in " Through Indian Eyes " in the Times of India dated 18-4-24, 


could not confine their patriotism to any one country The 

poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohamedans whether, 
in the event of any Mohamedan power invading India, they would s^and 
side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common 
land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. 
He said that he could definitely state that even such men as 
Mr. Mahomed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it 
permissible for any Mohamedan, whatever his country might be, to 
stand against any other Mohamedan." 


If independence is impossible then the destiny acceptable to 
a hundred per cent. Indian as the next best would be for India 
to have the status of a Dominion within the British Empire 
Who would be content with such a destiny ? I feel certain 
that left to themselves the Musalnians will not be content with 
Dominion Status while the Hindus most certainly will. Such 
a statement is sure to jar on the ears of Indians and Englishmen m 
The Congress being loud and vociferous in its insistance on indepen- 
dence the impression prevails that the Hindus are for independence 
and the Muslims are for Dominion Status. Those who were 
present at the R. T. C. could not have failed to realize how strong 
a hold this impression had taken of the English mind and how the 
claims and interests of the Hindus suffered an injury because of the 
twin cries raised by the Congress, namely, independence and 
repudiation of debts. Listening to these cries Englishmen felt that 
the Hindus were the enemies of the British and the Muslims who 
did not ask either for independence or repudiation were their friends. 
But this impression, however true it may be in the light of the 
avowed plans of the Congress, is a false impression created by false 
propoganda. For there can be no doubt that the Hindus are at 
heart for Dominion Status and that the Muslims are at heart for 
Independence. If proof is wanted there is abundance of it. 

The question of independence was first raised in 1921. In 
that year the Indian National Congress, the All-India Khilafat 
Conference and the All-India Muslim League held their annual 


Sessions in the city of Ahmadabad. In the Session of every ofce of 
them a resolution in favour of Independence was moved. It is 
interesting to note the fate which the Resolution met at the hands of 
the Congress, the Khilafat Conference and the Muslim League. 

The President of the Congress was Hakim Ajmal Khan who 
acted for Mr. C. R. Das who though duly elected could not preside 
owing to his having been arrested by Government before the 
Session commenced. In the Session of the Congress, Moulana 
Hasrat Mohani moved a resolution pressing for a change in 
the creed of the Congress. The following is the summary of the 
proceedings* relating to the resolution : 

" Moulana Hasrat Mohani in proposing his resolution on complete 
independence made a long and impassioned speech in Urdu. He 
said, although they had been promised Swaraj last year, the redress of 
the Khilafat and Punjab wrongs within a year, they had so far 
achieved nothing of the sort. Therefore it was no use sticking to the 
programme. If remaining within the British Empire or the British 
Commonwealth they could not have freedom, he felt that, if necessary, 
they should not hesitate to go out of it. In the words of Lok. Tilak 
" liberty was their birth-right, " and any Government which denied 
this elementary right of freedom of speech and freedom of action did 
not deserve allegiance from the people. Home Rule on Dominion 
Knes or Colonial Self-Government could not be a substitute to them 
for their inborn liberty. A Government which could clap into jail 
such distinguished leaders of the people as Mr. Chitta Ranjan Das, 
Pandit Motilal Nehru, Lala Lajpat Rai and others, had forfeited all 
qlaimto respect from the people. And since the end of the year did not 
bring them Swaraj nothing should prevent them from taking the only 
course left open to them now, that of winning their freedom free from 
all foreign control. The resolution reads as follows : 

" The object of the Indian National Congress is the attainment of 
Swaraj or complete independence free from all foreign control by the 
people of India by all legitimate and peaceful means. " 

After several delegates had spoken in favour of it, Mr. Gandhi 
came forward to opposed the Resolution. In opposing the 
Resolution, Mr. Gandhi said : 

s, I have said only a few words in Hindi in connection with 
of Mr. Hasrat Motiani. All I want to say to you in 

pp / "' " "* 


English is that the l&vity with that proposition which has been takefiby 
some of you has grieved me. It has grieved me because it shows 
lack of responsibility. As responsible men and women we should go 
back to the days of Nagpur and Calcutta and we should remember 
what we did only an hour ago. An hour ago we passed a resolution 
which actually contemplates a final settlement of the Khilafat and the 
Punjab wrongs and transferrence of the power from the hands of the 
bureaucracy into the hands of the people by certain definite means. 
Are you going to rub the whole of that position from your mind by 
raising a false issue and by throwing a bombshell in the midst of 
the Indian atmosphere ? I hope that those of you who have voted 
for the previous resolution will think fifty times before taking up 
this resolution and voting for it. We shall be charged by the 
thinking portion of the world that we do not know really where we 
are. Let us understand too our limitations. Let Hindus and 
Musalmans have absolute, indissoluuble unity. Who is here who 
can say today with confidence : " Yes, Hindu-Muslim Unity has 
become an indissoluble factor of Indian Nationalism ? " Who is 
here who can tell me that the Parsis and the Sikhs and the Christians 
and the Jews and the untouchables about whom you heard this 
afternoon who will tell me that those very people will not rise 
against any such idea ? Think therefore fifty times before you take 
a step which will rebound not to your credit, not to your advantage, 
but which may cause you irreparable injury. Let us first of all gather 
up our strength ; let us first of all sound our own depths. Let us not 
go into waters whose depts we do not know, and this proposition of 
Mr. Hasrat Mohani lands you into depths unfathomable. I ask you 
in all confidence to reject that proposition, if you belive in the 
proposition that you passed only an hour ago. The proposition 
now before you rubs off the whole of the effect of the proposition 
that you passed only a moment ago. Are creeds such simple things 
like clothes which a man can change at will ? For creeds people 
die, and for creeds people live from age to age. Are you going to 
change the creed which with all deliberation, and after great 
debate in Nagpur, you accepted? There was no limitation of one 
year when you accepted that creed. It is an extensive cre>ed ; it 
takes in all, the weakest and the strongest, and you will deny your- 
selves the privilege of clothing; the weakest amongst yourselves with 
protection if you accept this limited creed of Maulana Hasrat Mohaai, 
which does not admit the weakest of your brethren. I therefore 
ftsk you in all confidence to reject his proposition/- 

ANt> ?H MALAISE j?axt IV 

The Resolution when put to vote was declared to be lost. 

The session of the All-India Khilafat Conference was presided 
over also by Hakim Ajraai Khan. A Resolution in favour of 
Independence was also moved in the subjects committee of this 
Conference. What happened to the Resolution is clear from the 
following summary of its proceedings. The Report of the 
proceedings says* : 

" Before the Conference adjourned at eleven in the night till the 
next day the President, Hakim Ajmalkhan, announced that the 
Subjects Committee of the Conference had, on the motion of 
Mr. Azad Sobhani, supported by Mr. Hasrat Mohani, by a majority 
resolved to ask all Moharnedans and other communities to 
endeavour to destroy British imperialism and secure complete 

This resolution stated that whereas through the persistent policy 
and attitude of the British Government it cannot be expected that 
British Imperialism would permit the Jazirat-Ul-Arab and the Islamic 
world to be completely free; from the influence and control of non- 
Muslims, which means that the Khilafat cannot be secured to the 
extent that the Shariat demands its safety, therefore, in order to 
secure permanent safety of the Khilafat and the prosperity of India, 
it is necessary to endeavour to destroy British Imperialism. This 
Conference holds the view that the only way to make this effort is, 
for the Muslims, conjointly with other inhabitants of India, to make 
India completely free, and that this Conference is of opinion that 
* Muslim opinion about Swaraj is the same, that is, complete 
independence, and it expects that other inhabitants of India would 
also hold the same point of view. 

On the Conference resuming its sitting on the second day, December 
27th, 1921, a split was found to have taken place in the camp over 
this resolution about independence. When Mr. Hasrat Mohani was 
going to move his resolution declaring as their goal independence and 
the destruction of British Imperialism, objection was taken to its 
consideration by a member of the Khilafat Subjects Committee on the 
ground that .according to their constitution no motion which 
contemplated a change in their creed could be taken as adopted, 
unless it was voted for in the Subjects Committee by a majority 
of two-third. 

* The Indian Annual Register 1922 Appendix pages 133-34. 


The President, Hakim Ajmal Khan, upheld this objection and 
ruled the independence motion ~out of order. 

Mr. Hasrat Mohani strongly protested and pointed out that the 
President had disallowed a similar objection by the same member 
in the Subjects Committee, while he had allowed it in the open 
Conference. He said that the President had manoeuvred to rule 
his motion out of order in order to stand in their way of declaring 
from that Conference that their Swaraj meant complete independence. 

The President of the All-India Muslim League was Maulana 
Hasrat Mohani. A Resolution for independence also came before 
the League. The Report of the proceedings of the League bearing 
on the Reso! Jtion says* : 

" The Moslem League met at 9 p. m. on 3ist December 1921. 
After it had passed some non-contentious resolutions the President 
Hasrat Mohani made an announcement amidst applause that he 
proposed that the decision of the Subjects Committee rejecting his 
resolution regarding the attainment of independence and destruction 
of British Imperialism would be held as final and representing the 
opinion of the majority in the League, but that in view of the great 
importance of the subject he would allow a discussion on that 
resolution without taking any vote. 

Mr. Azacl Sobhani who had moved the resolution in the Subjects 
Committee, also moved it in the League. He said he believed in 
Hindu-Moslem unity as absolutely essential, in non-violent non-co- 
operation as the only way to fight their battle and Mr. Gandhi was 
fully deserving the dictatorship which had been invested on him by 
the Congress, but that he also believed that British Imperialism was 
the greatest danger to India and the Moslem world and must be 
destroyed by placing before them an ideal of independence. 

Mr. Azad Sobhani was followed by several speakers who supported 
him in the same vein. 

The Hon'ble Mr. Raza Ali announced that the reason for the ; . ruling 
of the President was that the League did not want to take a step which 
the Congress had not taken. He warned them against saying big 
things without understanding them and reminded the audience that 
India was at present not ready for maintaining liberty even if it was 

He asked, who would, for instance, be their Commander-in-Chief if 
the British left tomorrow. (A voice, " Enver Pasha "). 

*Ibid Appendix page 78 

, f>ati|: ? 

The speaker emphatically declared that he would not tolerate any 
foreigner. He wanted an Indian Commander-in-Chief, " 

In 1923 the question of Independence was again raised in the 
Congress Session held in Madras but with no success. 

In 1924 Mr. Gandhi presiding over the Congress Session held 
in Belgaum said : - 

In my opinion, if the British Government mean what they say and 
honestly help us to equality, it would be a greater triumph than a 
Complete severance of the British connection. I would therefor strive 
for Swaraj within the Empire but would not hesitate to sever all 
connection if it became a necessity through Britain's own fault. 
I would thus throw the burden of separation on the British people. " 

In 1925 Mr. C. R. Das again took up the theme. In his 
address to the Bengal Provincial conference held in May of that year 
he, with the deliberate object of giving a deadly blow to the idea of 
independence, took particular pains to show the inferiority of the idea 
of Independence as compared with that of Dominion Status : 

" Independence, to my mind, is a narrower ideal than 

that of Swaraj. It implies, it is true, the negation of dependence ; 
but by itself it gives us no positive ideal. I do not for a moment 
suggest that independence is not consistent with Swaraj. But what 
is necessary is not mere independence but the establishment of 
Swaraj. India may be independent tomorrow in the sense that the 
British people may leave us to our destiny but that will not 
necessarily give us what I understand by ' Swaraj '. As I pointed 
out in my Presidential address at Gaya, India presents an interesting 
but a complicated problem of consolidating the many apparently 
conflicting elements which go to make up the Indian people. This 
work of consolidation is a long process, may even be a weary 
process ; but without this no Swaraj is possible 

" Independence, in the second place., does not give you that idea 
of order which is the essence of Swaraj. The work of consolidation 
which I have mentioned means the establishment of that order. 
But let it be clearly understood that what is sought to be established 
must be consistent with the genius, the temperament and the traditions 
of the Indian people- -To my mind, Swaraj implies, firstly, that we 
must have the freedom of working out the consolidation of the diverse 
of the Indian peaple j $$cQn$ly, wa must proceed with, this 

ciaap. aw] NATIONAL FRUSTRATE** alti 

work on National lines, not going back two thousand years ago, but 
going forward in the light and in the spirit of our national genius aad 

" Thirdly, in the work before us, we must not be obstructed by any 
foreign power. What then we have to fix upon in the matter of ideal 
is what I call Swaraj and not mere Independence which may be the 
negation of Swaraj. When we are asked as to what is our national 
ideal of freedom, the only answer which is possible to give is Swaraj. 
I do not like either Home Rule or Self-Go verntnent. Possibly they 
come within what I have described as Swaraj. But my culture 
somehow or other is antagonistic to the word ' rule ' be it Home 

Rule or Foreign Rule. 

** **** 

" Then comes the question as to whether this ideal is to be 
realised within the Empire or outside ? The answer which the 
Congress has always given is ' within the Empire if the Empire, will 
recognise our ri^ht' and 'outside the Empire, if it does not. We 
must have opportunity to live our life, opportunity for self- 
realiz i,tion, self-development, and self-fulfilment. The question is of 
living our life. If the Empire furnishes sufficient scope for the 
growth and development of our national life the Empire idea is to be 
preferred. If, on the contrary, the Empire like the Car of Jagannath 
crushes our life in the sweep of its imperialistic march, there will be 
justification for the idea of the establishment of Swaraj outside the 

" In lee i, the Empire idea gives us a vivid sense of many advantages. 
Dominion St itus is in no sense servttuie. It is essentially an alliance 
by consent of those who form part of the Empire for material 
advantages in the real spirit of co-operation. Free alliance n3cessarily 
carries with it the right of separation. Before the War it is generally 
believed that it is only as a great confederation that the Empire or 
its component parts can live. It is realised that under modern 
conditions no nation can live in isolation and the Dominion Status, 
while it affords complete protection to each constituent composing 
the great Commonwealth of Nations called the British Empire, 
secures to each the right to realise itself, develop itself and fulfil 
itself and therefore it expresses and implies all the elements Of 
Swaraj which I have mentioned." 

"To rue the idea is specially attractive because of its deep 
spiritual significance. I believe in world peace, in the ultimate 
federation of the world j ana J think that ths great Commonwealth 



of Nations called the British Empire a federation of diverse races, 
each with its distinct life, distinct civilization, its distinct mental 
outlook if properly led with statesmen at the helm is bound to 
make lasting contribution to the great problem that awaits the 
statesman, the problem of knitting the world into the greatest 
federation the mind can conceive, the federation of the human race. 
But if only properly led with statesman at the helm ; for the 
development of the idea involves apparent sacrifice on the part of the 
constituent nations and it certainly involves the giving up for good the 
Empire Idea with its ugly attribute of domination. I think it is for 
the good of India, for the good of the world that India should strive 
for freedom within the Commonwealth -and so serve the cause 
of humanity." 

Mr. Das not only insisted that Dominion Status was better than 
Independence but he went further and got the Conierence to pass 
the following Resolution on the goal of India's political evolution. 

" i. This Conference declares that the National ideal of Swaraj 
involves the right of the Indian Nation to live its own life, to have 
the opportunity of self-realization, self-development and self-fulfilment 
and the liberty to woik for the consolidation of the diverse elements 
which go to make up the Indian Nation, unimpeded and unobstructed 
by any outside domination. 

2. That if the British Empire recognises such right and does not 
obstruct the realisation of Swaraj and is prepared to give such 
opportunity and undertakes to make the necessary sacrifices to make 
such rights effective, this Conference calls upon the Indian Nation to 
realise its Swaraj within the British Commonwealth." 

It may be noted that Mr. Gandhi was present throughout the 
session. But there was no word of dissent coming from him. On 
the contrary he approved of the stand taken by Mr. Das. 

With these facts, who can doubt that the Hindus are for 
Dominion Status and the Muslims are for Independence ? But if 
there be any doubt still remaining, the repurcussions in Muslim 
quarters over the Nehru Committee's Report in 1928 must dissolve 
it completely. The Nehru Committee appointed by the Congress 
to frame a constitution for India accepted Dominion Status as 
the basis for India's constitution and rejected independence. 


It is instructive to note the attitude adopted by the Congress 
and the Muslim political organizations in the country towards the 
Nehru Report* 

The Congress in its session held at Lahore in 1928 passed 
a resolution moved by Mr. Gandhi which was in the following 
terms : 

" This Congress, having considered the constitution recommended 
by the All-Parties' Committee Report, welcomes it as a great 
contribution towards the solution of India's political and communal 
problems, and congratulates the Committee on tho virtual unanimity 
of its recommendations and, whilst adhering to the resoluion relating 
to complete independance passed at the Madras Congress approves 
of the constitution drawn up by the Committee as a great step in 
political advance, especially as it represents the largest measure of 
agreement attained among the important parties in the country, 

" Subject to the exigencies of the political situation this Congess 
will adopt the constitution in its entirety if it is accepted by the 
British Parliament on or before December 31, 1929, but in the event 
of its non-acceptance by that date or its earlier rejection, Congress 
will organise a non-violent non-co-operation by advising the country 
to refuse taxation in such other manner as may be decided upon. 
Consistently with the above, nothing in this resolution shall interfere 
with the cariying on, in the name of the Congress, of the propaganda 
for complete independence." 

This shows that Hindu opinion is not in favour of Independence 
but in favour of Dominion Status. Some will take exception to this 
statement. It may be asked what about the Congress Resolution of 
1927 ? It is true that the Congress in its Madras Session held in 
1927 did pass the following resolution moved by Pandit Jawaharlal 
Nehru : 

"This Congress declares the goal of the Indian people to be 
complete National Independence." 

But there is enough evidence to support the contention that 
this resolution did not and does not speak the real mind of the 
Hindus in the Congress. 


The resolution came as a surprize, There was no indication of 
i| in the speech <?f Dr. Aiisari * who presided over the 1927 Session^ 
Th^ Chairman f of the Reception Committee only referred to it ist 
passing not as an urgent but a contingent line of action. 

There was no forethought about the resolution. It was the 
result of a coup and the coup was successful because of three factors. 

In the first place there was then a section in the Congress, which 
was opposed to the domination of Pandit Motilal Nehru and 
Mr.Gandhi, particularly the former. This group was led by Mr.Srinivas 
lyepgar who was a political rival of Pandit Motilal. They were 
searching for a plan which would destroy the power and prestige of 
Pandit Motilal and Mr. Gandhi. They knew that the only way to win 
people to their side was to take a more extreme position and to show 
that their rivals were really moderates and as moderation was deemed 
by the people to be a sin they felt that this plan was sure to succeed. 
They made the goal of India the battle ground, and knowing that 
Pundit Motilal and Gandhi who were for Dominion Status, put forth 
the goal of Independence. In the second place there was a section 
in the Congress which was led by Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel. This 
section was in touch with the Irish Sinn Fein party and was canvassing 
its help in the cause of India. The Irish Sinn Fein party was not 
willing to render any help unless the Indians declared that their 
goal was Independence. This section was anxious to change the 
goal from Dominion Status to Independence in order to secure Irish 
help. To these two factors was added a third, namely, the speech 
made by Lord Birkenhead, the then Secretary of State for India 

* This i* all that Dr. A a sari said about the subject in his speech : 

" Whatever be the final form of the constitution, one thing may be said with some 
degree of certainly, that it will have to be on federal lines providing for a United States of 
India with existing Indian States as autonomous units of the Federation taking their proper 
share in the defenoe of the country, in the regulation of the nation's foreign affairs and other 
joint and common interests." The Indian Quarterly Register 1927 Vol. II page 372. 

t Mr. liuthuranjra ModHar said : 

" We ought to make it known that if Parliament continues in its present insolent mood, 
we must definitely start on an intensive propogauda for the severance of India from the 
Empire. Whenever the time may come for the effective assertion of Indian nationalism, 
Inrtian aapriation will then be towards frae nationhood, untramelled even by the nominal 
su*e*iBty.o tiw kiog of EogX^nd. It behove* English statesmanship to take careful not* 
of this fact. Lot them not drive us to despair" Ibid page 

oa thd occasion of the apjw&itn&enf of the Simon 
hetaitnted the Indians on their incapacity to produce a constituted*!. 
The speech was regarded as a great insult by Indian politicians. It is 
thecombination of these three factors which was responsible for th6 
passing of this res Dlution. Indeed the resolution was passed more 
from the motive* of giving a fitting reply to Lord Birkenhead than 
from the motive of defining the political goal of the country and it 
is because of the bad temper created by Lord Birkenhead that forced 
Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Motilai to bow to the storm rather than 

engage upon the task of sweeping it off which they would have 
otherwise done. 

That this resolution did not speak the real mind of the 
Hindus in the Congress is beyond donbt. Otherwise it is not possible 
to explain how the Nehru Committee which was appointed a year 
after could have flouted the Madras resolution of 1927 by adopting 
Dominion Status as the basis of the constitutional structure framed by it. 
Nor is itpossible to explain how the Congress adopted Dominion 
Status in (928 if it had really acceptedt independence in 1927 as the 
resolution says. The clause in the Resolution that the Congress would 
accept Dominion Status if given before 3ist December 1929, if not, 
it would change its faith from Dominion Status to Independence 
was only a facet-saving device and did not connote a real change 
of heart. For time can never be of essence in a matter of so deep 
a concern such as the political destiny of the country. 

That notwithstanding the resolution of 1927 the Congress 
continued to believe in Dominion Status and did not believe in 
Independence is amply borne out by the pronouncements made from 
time to time by Mr. Gandhi who is the oracle of the Congress. 
Anyone who studies Mr. Gandhi's pronouncements on this subject 
from 1929 onwards cannot help feeling that Mr. Gandhi was not 
happy about the resolution on Independence and that he felt it 
necessary to wheel the Congress back to Dominion Status. He 
began with the gentle process of interpreting it away. The goal was 

* Mr Sambamurti in seconding the resolution said : " The Resolution is the only reply 
to the arrogant challenge thrown by Lord Birkenhead. " The Indian Quarterly Register 1927, 
Vol II p38l. 

+ Pandit Jevribar Nehru in moving the Resolution said : 

" It declares that the Congress stands to-day for complete Independence. Nonetheigw 
it leaves the doors of the Congress open to such persons as may perhaps be satisfied with 
ft lesser goal"-, Ibid p.381. 


first reduced irom Independence to substance of Independence. 
From substance of Independence it was reduced to equal 
partnership and from equal partnership it was brought back to its 
original position. The wheel completed the turn when Mr. Gandhi 
in 1937 gave the following letter to Mr. Pollock for the information 

of the English people : 

" Your question is whether I retain the same opinion as I did at 
the Round Table Conference in 1931. I said then, and repeat now, 
that, so far as I am concerned, if Dominion Stutus were offered to 
India in terms of the Statute of Westerminster, i, e., the right to secede 
at will, I would unhesitatingly accept*" 

Turning to the pronouncements of Muslim political organizations 
the fact is that they too rejected the Nehru Report. But the reasons 
given by them for its rejection are wholly different. No doubt some 
Muslim organizations such as the Muslim League rejected the Report 
because it recommended the abolition of separate electorates. But 
that was certainly not the reason why it was condemned by the 
Khilafat Conference or the Jamiat-ul-Ulema the two Muslim 
organizations which went with the Congress through the same firey 
ordeal of non-co-operation and civil disobedience and whose 
utterances expressed far more truly the real opinion of Muslim 
masses on the issues relating to the political affairs of the country 
than did the utterances of any other Muslim organization. 

Maulana Mohamad Ali gave his reasons for the rejection of 
the Nehru Report in his Presidential address to the All- India Khilafat 
Conference held in Calcutta in 1928. He saidf : 

" [I] was a member of the Indian National Congress, its Working 
Committee, the All-India Muslim League and [I] have come to the 
Khilafat Conference to express (my views) on the important political 
issues of the time, which should have the serious attention of the whole 

Moslem Community. 


"In the All- Parties Convention he had said that India should have 
complete independence and there was no communalism in it. Yet he 
was being heckled at every moment and stopped during his speech at 

every step. 

* * * * * 

* Times of India 1-2*37. In view of this the declaration made by the National Convention 
consisting 1 of the members elected to the new Provincial Legislatures under the new 
constitution on the 20th March 1937 at Delhi in favour of independence has no 

t The Indian Quarterly Register 1928 Vol. II pages 402*403, 


" The Nehru Report had as its preamble admitted the bondage of 

servitude Freedom and Dominion Status were widely 

divergent things 

* * * * 

"1 ask, when you boast of your nationalism and condemn communalism, 
show me a country in the world like your India your nationalist 

" You make compromises in your constitution every day with false 
doctrines, immoral conceptions and wrong ideas but you make no 
compromise with our communalists with separate electorates and 
reserved seats. Twenty-five per cent, is our portion of population and 
yet you will not give us 33 per cent in the Assembly. You are a Jew, 
a Bania. But to the English you give the status of your dominion." 

The Conference passed a short icsolution in the following 
pithy terms : 

"This Conference declares once more that complete independence 
was our goal." 

Maulana Hasrat Mohani, as President of the Jamiat-ul-TJlema 
Conference held in Allahabad in 1931, gave the same reasons for 
condemning the Nehru Report in words more measured but not less 
scathing. Said* the Maulan^ : 

" My political creed with regard to India is now well known to 
everybody. I cannot accept anything short of complete independence, 
and, that too, on the model of the United States of America or the 
Soviet Russia which is essentially (i) democratic, (2) federal and 
(3) centrifugal, and in which the rights of Muslim minoritis are 

"For some time the Jamiat-ul-Ulema of Delhi held fast to the 
creed of complete independence and it was mostly for this reason that 
it repudiated the Nehru Report which devised a unitary constitution 
instead of a federal one. Besides, when, after the Lahore session, the 
Congress, at the instance of Mahatma Gandhi, declared the burial of the 
Nehru Report on the banks of the Ravi and the resolution of complete 
independence was unanimously agreed upon, the Delhi Jamiat ventured 
to co-operate with the Congress and its programme of civil disobedience 
simply because it was the duty of every Indian, Hindu or Muslim, to 
take part in the struggle for independence. 

* Ibid 1031 Vol. II pages 23S-S9. 

** Hut unfortunately Ga&dtriji very soon went back upon liis wot is 
(t) while yet in jail he told tihe British journalist Mr* Slocombe 
that by complete independence he meant only the substance of 
independence, (2) besides, when he was released on expressing his 
inclination for compromise he devised the illusory term of Puma 
Swaraj in place of complete independence and openly declared that 
in " Puma Swaraj" there was no place for severance of the British 
connection, (3) by making a secret pact with Lord Irwin he definitely 
adopted the ideal of Dominion Status under the British Crown. 

" After this change of front by Gandhiji the Delhi Jamiat ou^ht to 
have desisted from blindly supporting the Mahtma and like the Nehru 
Report it should have completely rejected this formula of the Congress 
Working Committee by which the Nehru Report was sought to be 
revived at Bombay. 

"But we do not know what unintelligible reasons induced the Delhi 
Jamiat-ul-Ulema to adopt "Purna Swaraj" as their ideal, in spite of 
the knowledge that it does not mean complete independence but 
something even worse than complete independence. And the only 
explanation for adopting this creed is said to be that, although 
Gandhiji has accepted Dominion Status, he still instists that Britain 
should concede the right of cessation from the British Empire to 
the Indians. 

" Although it is quite clear that insistence on this right has no 
better worth than the previous declaration of complete independence, 
in other words, just as Gandhiji insisted on complete independence 
with the sole object of forcing the British Government to accede to 
the demand of Dominion Status, which was the sole ultimate aim of 
the Mahatma, in the same way the leaders of the Congress insisted 
upon the right of secession with the object of extorting the largest 
measure of political rights from the British people who might not go 
beyond a certain limit in displeasing them. Otherwise Gandhiji and 
his followers know it full well that even if this right of secession is 
given to Indians it would perhaps be never put into practice. 

"If some one considers this contention of mine to be based on 
suspicion and contends that the Congress will certainly declare for 
secession from the Empite whenever there is need of it, I wile ask him 
to let me know what will be the form of Indian Government after the 
British connection is withdrawn. It is clear that no one can conceive 
of a despotic form and a democratic form whether it be unitary or 
federal but centripetal, will be nothing more than Hindu Raj which 
the Musalmans can in no circumstances accept. Now remains only 


one form viz, after complete withdrawal of the British connection 
India with its autonomous Provinces and States forms into united 
centrifugal democratic Government on the model of the United 
States Republic or Soviet Russia. But this can never be acceptable 
to the Mahasabhite Congress or a lover of Britain like Mahatma 

"Thus the Jamiat-ul-Ulema of Delhi after washing its hands of 
complete independence has stultified itself, but thank God the Ulemas 
of Cawnpore, Lucknow, Badaun, etc., still hold fast to their pledge and 
will remain so, God willing. Some weuk-kneed persons urge against 
this highest ideal that, when it is not possible for the present to attain 
it, there is no use talking about it. We say to them that it is not at all 
useless but rather absolutely necessary, for if the highest ideal is not 
always kept before view it is liable to be forgotten. 

" We must, therefore, oppose Dominion Status in all circumstances 
as this is not the half-way house or part of our ultimate aim, but its 
very negation and rival. If Gandhiji reaches England and the Round 
Table Conference is successfully concluded, giving India Dominion 
Status of any kind, with or without safeguards, the conception of 
complete Independence will completely vanish or at any rate will not 
be thought of for a very long time to come." 

The All-India Khilafat Conference and the Jamiat-ul-Ulema 
were of course extremist bodies avowedly Anti-British. But the 
All-Parties Muslim Conference was not at all a body of extremists or 
anti-British Musalmans. Yet the U. P. Branch of it in its session 
held at Cawnpore on 4th November 1928 passed the following 
resolution : 

"In the opinion of the All-Parties U. P. Moslem Conference, 
Mussalmans of India stand for the goal of complete independence, 
which shall necessarily take the form of a federal republic." 

In the opinion of the mover, Islam always taught freedom, 
and for the matter of that the Moslems of India would fail in their 
religious duty, if they were against complete independence. Though 
Indian Moslems were poor yet they were, the speaker was sure, 
devoted to Islam more than any people on earth. 

In this Conference an incident* of some interest occurred in 
the Subjects Committee when Maulana Azad Sobhani proposed 
that the Conference should declare itself in favour of complete 

* See The Indian Quarterly Register 1928 VoL IT p*go 425, 



Khan Bahadur Masoodul Hassan and some other persons, 
objected to such declaration, which, in their opinion, would go 
against the best interests of Mussalmans. 

Upon this, a number of women from their purdah gallery sent 
a written statement to the President saying that if men had not the 
courage to stand for complete independence, women would come 
out of purdah, and take their place in the struggle for independence. 


Notwithstanding this difference in their ultimate destiny, an 
attempt is made to force the Hindus and Muslims to live in one 
country, as one people, bound by the political ties of a single 
constitution. Assuming that this is done and that the Muslims are 
some-how manoeuvred into it what guarantee is there that the 
constitution will not break down ? 

The successful working of a Parliamentary Government 
assumes the existence of certain conditions. It is only when these 
conditions exist that Parliamentary Government can take roots. 
One such condition was pointed out by the late Lord Balfour when 
in 1925 he had an occasion to discuss the political future of the Arab 
peoples in conversation with his niece Blanche Dugdale. 
In the course of this convention he said* : 
"It is partly the fault of the British nation and of the Americans ; 
we can't exornate them from blame either that this idea of 
" representative government" has got into the heads of nations who 
haven't the smallest nation of what its basis must be. It's difficult 
to explain, and the Anglo-Saxon races are bad at exposition. More- 
over we know it so well ourselves that it does not strike us as 
necessary to explain it. I doubt if you would find it written in any 
book on the British Constitution that the whole essence of British 
Parliamentary Government lies in the intention to make the thing 
work. We take that for granted. We have spent hunderds of years 
in elaborading a system that rests on that alone. It is so deep in us 
that we have lost sight of it. But it is not so obvious to others. These 
pepoles Indians, Egyptians, and so on study our learning. 
They read our history, our philosophy, an politics. "They 
learn about our parliamentary methods of obstruction, but 
nobody explains to them that when it comes to the point all our 

* Dugdale's Balfour (Hutchinson) Vol. H pp. 36364. 


parliamentary parties are determined that the machinery stan't stop. 
"The king's government must go on" as the Duke of Wellington said. 
But their idea is that the function of opposition is to stop the machine. 
Nothing easier, of course, but hopless." 

Asked why the opposition in England does not go to the length 
of stopping the machine he said : 

"Our whole political machinery presupposes a people . . . 
fundamentally at one" 

Lasky has well summarized these observations of Balfour on the 
condition necessary for the successful working of Parliamentary 
Government when he says :* 

"The strength of Parliamentary Government is exactly measured 
by the unity of political parties upon its fundamental objects." 

Having stated the condition necessary for the successful 
working of the machinery of representative Government it will be 
well to examine whether these conditions are present in India. 

How far can there be said to be an intention in the Hindus and 
Muslims to make representative government work ? To prove the 
futility and un workability of representative and responsible govern- 
ment it is enough even if one of the two parties shows an intention 
to stop the machinary of government. If such an intention is 
enough, then it does not matter much whether it is found in the 
Hindus or in the Muslims. The Muslims being more outspoken 
than the Hindus one gets to know their mind more than one gets 
to know the mind of the Hindus. How the Muslim mind will work 
and by what factors it is likely to be swayed will be clear if the 
fundamental tenets of Islam which dominate Muslim politics and the 
views expressed by prominent Muslims having a bearing on Muslim 
attitude towards an Indian Government are taken into consideration. 
Certain of such religious tenets of Islam and the views of some of the 
Muslim leaders are given below to enable all those who are capable 
of looking at things dispassionately to judge for themselves whether the 
condition postulated by Balfour can be said to exist in India. 

Among the tenets the one that calls for notice is the tenet of 
Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim Rule 

* Parliamentary Government in England page 37. 

wh&3rever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the 
land the former must prevail over the latter and a Muslim will be 
justified in obeying the Muslim Law and defying the law of the land. 

What the duty of the musalmans is in such cases was well 
pointed out by Maulana Mahomad Ali in the course of his statement 
made in 1921 before the Committing Magistrate of Karachi in answer 
to the charges for which he was prosecuted by the Government. 
The prosecution arose out of a resolution passed at the session of 
the All- India Khilafat Conference held in Karachi on 8-7-21 at 
which Mr. Mahomad Ali presided and introduced the resolution in 

The reslution was as follows : 

" This meeting clearly proclaims that it is in every way religiously 
unlawful for a Musalmaii at the present moment to continue in the 
British Army, or to enter the Army, or to induce others to join the 
Army. And it is the duty of all Musalmans in general and of the 
Ulenias in particular to see that these religious commandments are 
brought home to every Musalmaii in the Army. " 

Along with Maulana Mahomad Ali other six persons* were 
prosecuted under Sections I2O-B read with Sec 131 I. P. C. and 
under Sec 505 or 505 read with Sec 114 and Section 505 read with 
117 I. P. C. Maulana Mahomad Ali in justification of his plea of 
not guilty saidf : 

" After all what is the meaning of this precious prosecution. B} r 
whose convictions are we to be guided, we the Musalmans and the 
Hindus of India ? Speaking as a Musalmaii, if I am supposed to err 
A from the right path, the only way to convince me of my error is to 
refer me to the Holy Koran or to the authentic traditions of the last 
Prophet 011 whom be peace and God's benediction or the religious 
pronoucements of recognized Muslim divines, past and present, which 
purport to be based on these two original sources of Islamic authority 
demands from me in the present circumstances, the precise action 
for which a Government that does not like to be called Satanic, is 
prosecuting me to-day. 

If that which I neglect, becomes by my neglect a deadly sin, and 
is yet a crime when I do not neglect it how am I to consider myself 
this country ? 

enough one of them was the ShaDkaracharya of Sharada Peeth. 
: 4J|Hh Trial of AH Brothers by B. V. Thadani pages W-71. 


I must either be a sinner or a criminal ,.* *.. Islam* 

recognizes one sovereignty alone, the sovereignty of God, which is 

supreme and unconditional, indivisible and inalienable 


The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, 
whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, 
is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge his allegiance to God, 
to his prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans 
chief among the last mentioned being of course that Prophet's successor 

or commander of the faithful 

This doctrine of unity is not a mathematical formula elaborated by 
abstruse thinkers but a work-a-elay belief of every Musalman learned 

or unlettered Musalmans have before this also and elsewhere 

too, lived in peaceful subjection to non-Muslim administrations. But 
the unalterable rule is and has always been that as Musalmans they 
can obey only such laws and orders issued by their secular rulers as do 
not involve disobedience to the commandments of God who in the 
expressive language of the Holy Koran is " the all-ruling ruler." 
These very clear and rigidly definite limits of obedience are not laid 
down with regard to the authority of lion- Muslim administrations only. 
On the contrary they are of universal application and can neither be 
enlarged nor reduced in any case " 

This must make any one wishing for a stable Government 
very apprehensive. But this is nothing as compared with the 
second fact to be noted. It relates to Muslim tenets which prescribe 
when a country is a motherland to the Muslim and when it is not. 

According to Muslim Cannon law the world is divided into two 
camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of 
war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims* 
A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but 
are not rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, 
India cannot be the common motherland of Hindus and Musalmans, 
It can be the land of Musalmans but it cannot be the land of 
1 Hindus and Muslmans living as equal. ' Further, it can be the 
land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. 
The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of 
a non-Muslim power it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead 
of being Dar-ul- Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb. 


It must not be supposed that this view is only of an academic 
interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of 
influencing the conduct of the Muslims. It did greatly influence the 
conduct of the Muslims when the British occupied India. The 
British occupation raised no qualms in the minds of the Hindus. 
But so far as the Muslims were concerned, it at once raised the 
question whither India was any longer a suitable place of residence 
for Muslims. A discussion was started in the Muslim community, 
which Dr. Titus says lasted for half a century, as to whether India 
was Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam. Some of the more zealous 
elements, under the leadership of Sayyed Ahmed, actually did declare 
a holy war, preached the necessity of emigration (fli/rat) to lands 
under Muslim rule, and carried their agitation all over India. 

It took all the ingenuity of Sir Sayyied Ahmad the founder of 
the Aligarh movement to persuade the Indian Musalmans not to 
regard India under the British as Dar-ul-Harb merely because it 
was not under Muslim rule. He urged upon the Muslims to regard 
it as Dar-ul-Islam, because the Muslims were perfectly free to exercise 
all the essential rites and ceremonies of their religion. The movement 
for Hijrat for the time being died down. But the doctrine that 
India was Dar-ul-Harb had not been given up. It was again 
preached by Muslim patriots during 1920-21, when the Khilafat 
agitation was going on. The agitation was not without response 
from the Muslim masses and there were a goodly number of Muslims 
who not only showed themselves ready to act in accordance with 
the Muslim Cannon Law but actually abandoned their homes in 
India and crossed over to Afghanistan. 

It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of 
escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There 
is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad by 
which it becomes " incubent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of 
Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway 
The world, being divided into two camps, Dar-ul Islam ( abode of 
Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb ( abode of war), all countries come under 
one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the 
Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul Harb 
into Dar-ul-Islam." And just as there are instances of the 


Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat there arc instances showing 
that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad. The curious ma)' 
examine the history of the Mutiny of 1857 and if he does, he will 
find that in part at any rate it was really a Jihad proclaimed by the 
Muslims against the British, and that the Mutiny so far as the 
Muslims were concerned was a recrudesence of revolt which had 
been fostered by Syyed Ahmacl who preached to the Musalmans for 
several decades that owing to the occupation of India by the 
British the country had become a I^ar-ul-Harb. The Mutiny was 
an attempt by the Muslims to re-convert India into a Dar-ul-Islam. 
A more recent instance was the invasion of India by Afghanistan in 
1919. It was engineered by the Musahnans of India who led by the 
Khilafatists, antipathy to the British Government sought the 
assistance of Afghanistan to emancipate India.* Whether the 
invasion would have resulted in the emancipation of India or 
whether it would have resulted in its subjugation, it is not possible to 
say because the invasion failed to take eilect. Apart from this the 
fact remains that India if not exclusively under Muslim rule is 
a Dar-ul-Harb and the Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam 
are justified in proclaiming a Jihad. 

Not only they can proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of 
a foreign Muslim power to make his Jihad a success or if the foreign 
Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in 
making its endeavour a success. This was clearly explained by 
Mr. Mahomad AH in his address to the Jury in the Session Court. 
Mr. Mahomad Ali said : 

" But since the Government is apparently uninformed about the 
manner in which our Faith colours and is me mt to colour all our 
actions, including those which, for the sake of convenience, are 
generally characterised as mundane, one thing must be made clear, 
and it is this : Islam does not permit the believer to pronounce an 
adverse judgment against another believer without mere convincing 
proof ; and we could not, of course, fight against our Moslem brothers 
without making sure that they were guilty of wanton aggression, and 
did not take up arms in defence of their faith. " ( This was in relation 
to the war that was going on between the British and the Afghans in 

*Thia interesting and awful episode has been examined in some details, giving the part 
played therein by Mr. Gandhi in a series of articles in the Maradha, 1940 by Mr, Karandikar. 


1:919). "Now our position is this. Without better proof of the 
Amir's malice or madness we certainly do not want Indian soldiers, 
including the Mussalamans, and particularly with our own encourage- 
ment and assistance, to attack Afghanistan and effectively occupy it 
first, and then be a prey to more perplexity and perturbation after- 
wards. " 

" But if on the contrary His Majesty the Amir has no quarrel with 
India and her yeople and if his motive must be attributed, as the 
Secretary of State has publicly said, to the unrest which exists 
throughout the Mahomedan world and unrest with which he openly 
professed to be in cordial sympathy, that is to say, if impelled by the 
same religious motive that has forced Muslims to contemplate Hijrat, 
the alternative of the weak, which is all that is within our restricted 
means, His Majesty has been forced to contemplate Jihad, the 
alternative of those comparatively stronger, which he may have found 
within his means ; if he has taken up the challenge of those who 
believed in force and yet more force, and he intends to try conclusions 
with those who require Mussulmans to wage war against the Khalifat 
and those engaged in Jehad ; who are an wrongful occupation of the 
Jazirut-ul-arab and the holy places ; who aim at the weaking of Islam ; 
discriminate against it ; and deny to us full freedom to advocate its 
cause ; then the clear law of Islam requires that in the first place, in no 
case whatever should a Musalman render any one any assistance 
against him ; and in the next place if the Jihad approaches my region 
every Musalman in that region must join the Mujahidiu and assist them 
to the best of his or her power/' 

"Such is the clear and undisputed law of Islam; and we had 
explained this to the Committee investigating our case when it had put 
to us a question about the religious duty of a Moslem subject of 
a non-Moslem power when Jihad had been declared against it, long 
before there was any notion of trouble on the Fronties, and when the 
late Amir was still alive." 

A third tenet which calls for notice as being relevant to 
the issue is that Islam does not recognize territorial affinities. Its 
affinities are social and religious and therefore extra-territorial. Here 
again Maulana Mahomad Ali will be the best witness. When he 
was committed to the Sessions Court in Karachi Mr. Mahomad Ali 
addressing the Jury said : 

u One thing has to be made clear as we have since discovered that 
the doctrine to which we shajl now advert is sot so generally known 


in Non-Moslem and particularly in official circles as it ought to be. 
A Mussalman's faith does not consist merely in believing in a set of 
doctrines and living up to that belief himself; he must also exert 
himself to the fullest extent of his power, of course without resort to 
any compulsion, to the end that others also conform to the prescribed 
belief and practices. This is spoken of in the Holy Koran as "Amrbil- 
maroof " -and "Nahi anilmunkar ; and certain distinct chapters of the 
Holy Prophets, traditions relate to this essential doctrine of Islam. 
A Mussalman cannot say : "I am not my brother's keeper," for in 
a sense he is and his own salvation cannot be assured to him unless he 
exhorts others also to do good and dehorts them against doing evil. 
If therefore any Mussalman is being compelled to wage war against 
the Mujahid of Islam, he must not only be a conscientious objector 
himself, but must, if he values his own salvation, persuade his brothers 
also at whatever risk to himself to take similar objection. Then and 
not until then, can he hope for salvation. This is our belief as well as 
the belief of every other Mussalman and in our humble way we seek 
to live up to it ; anrl if we are denied freedom to inculcate this 
doctrine we must conclude that the land where this freedom does not 
exist is not safe for Islam." 

This is the basis of Pan-Islamism. It is this which leads 
every Mussalman in India to say that he is a Muslim first and 
Indian afterwards. It is this sentiment which explains why the 
Indian Muslim has taken so small a part in the advancement of 
India but has spent himself to exhaustion* by taking up the cause 
of Muslim countries and why Muslim countries occupy the first 
place and India occupies a second place in his thoughts. 

His Highness the Aga Khan justifies it by saying : 

"This is a right and legitimate Pan-Islamism to which every 
sincere and believing Mahometan belongs that is, the theory of the 
spiritual brotherhood and unity of the children of the Prophet. It is 
a deep, perennial element in that Perso-Arabian culture, that great 
family of civilization to which we gave the name Islamic in the first 
chapter. It cannotes charity and goodwill towards fellow-believers 
everywhere from China to Morocco, from the Volga to Singapore. 
It means an abiding interest in the literature of Islam, in her beautiful 
arts, in her lovely architecture, in her entrancing poetry. It also 

* Between 1912 when the first Balkan war began and 1922 when Turkey made peace 
with the European powers the Indian Muslims did not bother about Indian politics in the 
least. They were completely absorbed in the fate of Turkey and Arabia. 



a traa reformation -~ a return to the early and pure 
of the faith, to its preaching by persuation and argument, to the 
manifestation of a spiritual power in individual lives, to beneficient 
activity of mankind. This natural and worthy spiritual movement 
makes not only the Master and His teaching but also His children of 
all climes and object of affection to the Turk or the Afghan, to the 
Indian or the Egyptian, A famine or a desolating fire in the Moslem 
quarters of Kashgar or Sarajevo would immediately draw the 
sympathy and material assistance of the Mahomedan of Delhi or 
Cairo. The real spiritual and cultural unity of Islam must ever grow, 
for to the follower of the Prophet it is the foundation of the life of the 

If this spritual Pan-Islamism seeks to issue forth in political 
Pan-Islamism it cannot be said to be unatural. It is perhaps that 
feeling which was in the mind of the Aga Khan when he said : 

"It is for the Indian patriot to recognise that Persia, Afghanistan 
and possibly Arabia must sooner or later come within the orbit of 
some Continental Power such as Germany, or what may grow out 
of the break-up of Russia or must throw in their lot with that of 
the Indian Empire, with which they have so much more genuine 
affinity. The world forces that move small States into closer contact 
with powerful neighbours, though so far most visible in Europe, will 
inevitably make themselves felt in Asia. Unless she is willing to 
accept the prospect of having powerful and possibly inimical neighbours 
to watch, and the heavy military burdens thereby entailed, India 
cannot afford to neglect to draw her Mahomedan neighbour States to 
herself by the ties of mutual interest and goodwill/' 

" In a word, the path of beneficent and growing union must be based 
on a federal India, with every member exercising her individual rights, 
her historic peculiarities and natural interests, yet protected by 
a common defensive system and customs union from external danger 
and economic exploitation by stronger forces. Such a federal India 
would promptly bring Ceylon to the bosom of her natural mother, and 
the further developments we have indicated would follow. We can 
build a great South Asiatic Federation by now laying the foundations 
wide and deep on justice, on liberty, and on recognition for every 
race, every religion, and every historical entity." 

"A sincere policy of assisting both Persia and Afghanistan in the 
onward march which modern conditions demand, will raise two. 
natural ramparts for India in the North-West that neither German nor 
Slav, Turk nor Mongol, can ever hope to destroy* They will b$ drawn 

diaf*. xiij NATIONAL 

df their own accord towards the Power which provides the dbjeet 
lesson of a healthy form of federalism in India, with real autonomy for 
each province, with the internal freedom of principalities assured, with 
a revived and liberalised kingdom of Hyderabad, including the Berars, 
under the Nizam, They would see in India freedom and order, 
autonomy and yet Imperial union, and would appreciate for themselves 
the advantages of a confederation assuring the continuance of internal 
self-government buttressed by goodwill, the immense and unlimited 
strength of that great Empire on which the sun never sets. The 
British position in Mesopotamia and Arabia also, whatever its nominal 
form may be, would be infinitely strengthened by the policy I have 

This South Asiatic Federation was more for the good of the 
Muslim countries such as Arabia, Messapotcmia and Afghanistan 
than for the good of India.* This shows how very naturally the 
thoughts of Indian Mussalmans are occupied by considerations of 
Muslim countries other than those of India. 

Government is based on obedience to authority. But those who 
are eager to establish self-government of Hindus and Muslims do not 
seem to have stopped to inquire on what such obedience depends and 
how far such obedience would be forthcoming in the usual course 
and in moments of crisis. This is a very important question. For, 
if obedience fails self-government must fail. It is no use arguing 
that representative government means working together and not 
working under. That may be so in an ideal sense. But in the 
practical and work-a-day world, if the elements brought under one 
representative government are disproportionate in numbers, the 

* What a terrible thing it would have been if this South Asiatic Federation had como 
into being 1 , Hindus would have been reduced to the position of a distressed minority, 
The "Indian Annual Register" says : "Supporters of British Imperialism in the Muslim 
Community of India have also been active trying by the organization of an Anglo-Muslim 
alliance to stabilize the rule of Britain in Southern Asia, from Arabia to the Malaya 
Archipelago, wherein the Muslims will be junior partners in the firm at present, hoping to 
rise in time to the senior partnership. It was to some such feeling and anticipation that 
we must trace the scheme adumbrated by Hie Highness the Aga Khan in hia book- 
' Indict in Transition ' published during the war years. The scheme had planned for the 
setting up of a South Western Asiatic Federation of which India might be a constituent 
unit. After the War when Mr. Winston CnurchilJ was Secretary of State for the Colonies 
in the British Cabinet he found in the Archives of the Middle Eastern Department 
a scheme ready -made of a Middle Eastern Empire" - 1938 VoL II Section on India in Home 
Polity p. 48. 


minor section will have to work under the major section and whether 
it works under the major section or not will depend upon how far it 
is disposed to obey the authority of the government carried on by the 
major section. So important is this factor in the success of self- 
government that Balfour may be said to have spoken only part of 
the truth when he made its success dependent upon parties being 
fundamentally at one. He failed to note that willingness to obey the 
authority of Government is a factor equally necessary for the success 
of any scheme of self-go veniment. 

The importance of this second condition the existence of which 
is necessary for a successful working of parliamentary government 
has been discused by * by James Bryce. While dealing with 
the basis of political cohesion Bryce points out that while force 
may have done much to build up States, force is only one among 
many factors and not the most important. In creating moulding, 
expainding and knitting together political communities with more 
important than force is obedience. This willingness to obey and 
comply the sanctions of a government depends upon certain psycho- 
logical attibutes of the individual citizens and groups. According 
to Bryce the attitude which produces obedience are indolence, 
deference, sympathy, fear and reason. Ail are not of the same 
value. Indeed they are relative in their importance as causes 
producing a disposition to obey. As formulated by Bryce, in the 
sum total of obedience the percentage due to fear and to reason 
respectively is much less than that due to indolence and less also 
than that due to deference or sympathy. According to this view 
deference and sympathy are therefore the two most powerful 
factors which predispose a people to obey the authority of its 

Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the 
Government is as essential for the stability of Government as the 
unity of political parties on the fundamentals of the state. It is 
impossible for any sane person to question the importance of 
obedience in the maintainance of the state. To believe in civil 
disobedience is to believe in anarchy. 

* Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Vol. II Essay I 


How far will Muslims obey the authority of a Government 
manned and controlled by the Hindus ? The answer to this question 
need not call for much inquiry. To the Muslims a Hindu is 
a Kaffir.* A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low born and 
without status. That is why a country which is ruled by a Kaffir is 
Dar-ul-Harh to a Mussalman. Given this, no further evidence 
seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey 
a Hindu Government. The basic feelings of deference and 
sympathy which predispose persons to obey the authority of Govern- 
ment do not simply exist. But if proof is wanted there is no 

dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender 
and what to omit. 

In the midst of the Khilafat agitation when the Hindus were 
doing so much to help the Mussulmans, the Muslims did not forget 
that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior 
race. A Mussalman wrotef in the Khilafat paper called ' Insaf 

" What is the meaning of Swami and Mahatma ? Can Muslims 
use in speech or writing these words about non-Muslims ? " He says 
that Swami means ' Master ', and ' Mahatma ' means ' possessed of 
the highest spiritual powers ' and is equivalent to ' Ruh-i-aazam ', 
and the supreme spirit." 

He asked the Muslim divines to decide by an authoritative fatwa* 
whether it was lawful for Muslims to call Non-Muslims by such 
deferential and reverential titles. 

A remarkable incident was reported J in connection with the 
celebration of Mr. Gandhi's release from goal in 1924 at the Tibbi 
College of Yunani medicine run by Hakim Ajmal Khan at Delhi. 
According to the report a Hindu student compared Mr. Gandhi 
to Hazarat Isa (Jesus) and at this sacrilege to the Mussalman 
sentiment all the Mussalman students flared up and threatened the 
Hindu student with violence, and, it is alleged, even the Mussalman 
professors joined with their co-religionists in this demonstration of 
their outraged feelings. 

* The Hindus have uo right to feel hurt at being called Kaffirs. They call the Muslims 
not fit to associate with. 

f See "Through Indian Eyes' 5 Times of India dated ll-3-*J4 
Ibid dated 21-3-24. 


In 1933 Mr. Mahommad AH presided over the session of the 
Indian National Congress. In this address he spoke of Mr. Gandhi 
in the following terms : 

44 Many have compared the Mahatma's teachings, and laterly his 

personal sufferings; to those of Jesus (on whom be peace)...., 

When Jesus contemplated the world at the outset of his ministry he 

was called upon to make his choice of the weapons of reform 

The idea of being all-powerful by suffering and resignation, and of 
triumphing over force by purity of heart, is as old as the days of 

Abel and Cain, the first progeny of man. 

Be that as it may, it was just as pecular to Mahatma Gandhi also ; 
but it was reserved for a Christian Government to treat as felon the 
most christ-like man of our times (Shame f Shanie) and to penalize as 
a disturber of the public peace the one man engaged in public affairs 
who comes nearest to the Prince of Peace. The political conditions 
of India just before the advent of the Mahatma resembled those of 
Judea 011 the eve of the advent of Jesus, and the prescription that 
he offered to those in search of a remedy for the ills of India was 
the same that Jesus had dispensed before in Judea. Self-purification 
through suffering ; a moral preparation for the responsibilities of 
Government ; self-discipline as the condition precedent of Swaraj 
this was Mahatma's creed and conviction ; and those of us who have 
been privileged to have lived in the glorious year that culminated in 
the Congress session at Ahmedabad have seen what a remarkable 
and rapid change he wrought in the thoughts, feelings and actions 
of such large masses of mankind." 

A year after, Mr. Mahommad Ali speaking at Aligarh and 
Ajmere said : 

"However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to 
me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman, even 
though he be without character." 

The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that 
Mr. Mahommad Ali who testified to so much veneration for 
Mr. Gandhi was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and 
contemptuous sentiments above him. When Mr. Mahommad Ali 
was speaking at a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow he 
was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. 
Mr. Mahommad Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied* : 

" Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous 
and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi." 

* Ibid dated 21-3.24. 



It was suggested* at the time that Mr. Mahommad Ali had to 
recant because the whole of the orthodox Muslim community had 
taken offence for his having shown such deference to Mr* Gandhi, 
who was a Kaffir, as to put him on the same pedastal as Jesus* 
Such praise of a Kaffir, they felt, was forbidden by the Muslim 
cannon law. 

In a mainfestof on Hindu Moslem Relations issued in 1928 
Khwaja Hasan Nizami declared : 

" Mussalmans are separate from Hindus ; they cannot unite with 
the Hindus. After bloody wars the Mussulmans conquered India, 
and the English took India from them. The Mussalmans are one 
united nation and they alone will be masters of India. They will 
never give up their individuality. They have ruled India for 
hundreds of years, and hence they have a prescriptive right over the 
country. The Hindus are a minor community in the world. They 
are never free from internecine quarrels ; they believe in Gandhi and 
worship the cow : They are polluted by taking other people's water. 
The Hindus do not care for self-government ; they have no time to 
spare for it : let them go on with their internal squabbles. What 
capacity have they for ruling over men ? The Mussalmans did rule, 
and the Mussalmans will rule/' 

Far from rendering obedience to Hindus the Muslims seem to 
be ready to try conclusions with the Hindus again. In 1925 there arose 
a controversy as to who really won the third battle of Panipat, fought 
in 1761. It was contended for the Muslims that it was a great 
victory for them because Ahamad Sha Abdali had I lakh of 
soldiers while the Marathas had 4 to 6 lakhs. The Hindus replied 
that it was a victory to them a victory to the vanquished because 
it stemmed the tide of Muslim invasions. The Muslims were not 
prepared to admit defeat at the hands of the Hindus and claimed 
that they will always prove superior to the Hindus. To prove the 
eternal superiority of Muslims over Hindus it was proposed by one 
Maulana Akabar Shah Khan of Najibabad in all seriousness, that 
the Hindus and Muslims should fight, under test conditions, a fourth 

* Ibid dated 26-4-24. 

t " Through India Eyes " Times of India dated 14^3-28. 


battle on the some fateful plain of Panipat. The Maulana accord- 
ingly issued* a challenge to Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya in the 
following terms : 

"If you, Malviyaji are making efforts to falsify the result 
at Panipat, I shall show you an easy and an excellent wa} r 
(of testing it). Use your well-known influence and induce the 
British Government to permit the fourth battle of Panipat to be 
fought out without hindrance from the authorities. I am ready to 

provide a comparative test of the valour and fighting spirit of the 

Hindus and the Mussalmans As there are seven crores of 

Musalmans in the India, I shall arrive on a fixed cbte on the plain of 
Panipat with 700 Mussalmans representating the seven crores of 
Moslem in India and as there are 22 crores of Hindus I allow you 
to come with 2,200 Hindus. The proper thing is not to use cannon, 
machine guns or bombs : only swords and javelins and spears, bows 
and arrows and daggers should be used. If you cannot accept the 
post of generalissimo of the Hindu host, you may give it to any 
cl3scen:lent of Sadashivraof or Vishw.isniof so that there scions may 
have on opportunity to avenge the defeat of their ancestors in 1761. 
But any way do come as a spectator ; for on seeing the result of 
this battle you will have to change your views, and I hope there will 

be then an end of the present discord and fighting in the country 

In conclusion I beg to add that among the 700 men that I shall 
bring there will be no Pathans or Afghans as you are mortally afraid 
of them. So I shall bring with me only Indian Mussalmans of good 
f imity who are staunch adherents of shariat." 


Such are the religious beliefs, social attitudes and ultimate 
destinies of the Hindus and Muslims and their communal and 
political manifestations. These religious beliefs, social attitudes 
and veivvs regarding ultimate destinies constitute the motive force 
which detemines the lines of their action, whether they will be 
cooperative or conflicting* Past experience shows that they are too 
irreconcilable and too incompatible to permit Hindus and Muslims 

* Quoted in "Through Indian Eyes" Times of India dated 20-6-25. 

t They were the Military Commanders on the side of the Hindus in the third battle 
of Panipat. 


ever forming one single nation or even two harmonious parts of 
one whole. These differences have the sure effect not only of 
keeping them asunder but also of keeping them at war. The 
differences are permanent and the Hindu-Moslem problem bids fare 
to be eternal. To attempt to solve it on the footing that Hindus 
and Muslims are one or if they are not one now they will be one 
hereafter is bound to be a barren occupation as barren as it 
proved to be in the case of Czechoslovakia. On the contrary time 
has come when certain facts must be admitted as beyond dispute, 
however unpleasant such admissions may be. 

In the first place it should be admitted that every possible 
attempt to bring about union between Hindus and Muslims has been 
made and that all of them have failed 

The history of these attempts may be said to begin with the 
year 1909. The demands of the Muslim deputation, if they were 
granted by the British, were assented to by the Hindus, prominent 
amongst whom was Mr. Golchale. He has been blamed by many 
Hindus for giving his consent to the principle of separate electorates. 
His critics forget that witholding consent would not have been 
part of wisdom. For, as has been well said by Mr. Mahommad 
Ali : 

" paradoxical as it may seem, the creation of separate 

electorates was hastening the advent of Hindu-Muslim unity. For 
the first time a real franchise, however restricted, was being offered 
to Indians, and if Hindus and Mussalmans lemained just as divided 
as the} r had hitherto been since the commencement of the British rule, 
and often hostile to one another, mixed electorates would have 
provided the best battle-ground for inter-communal strifes, and 
would have still further wiJenei the gulf separating the two commu- 
nities. Each candidate for election would have appealed to his own 
community for votes and would have based his claims for preference 
on the intensity of his ill-will towards the rival community, however 
disguised this may have been under some such formula as "the defence 
of his community's interests". Bad as this would have been, the 
results of an election in which the two communities were not equally 
matched would have been even worse, for the community that failed 
to get its representative elected would have inevitably borne a yet 
deeper grudge against its successful rival. Divided as the two 



communities ware, there was no chance for any political principles 
coming into pro mi nance during the elections. The creation of separate 
electorates did a great deal to stop this inter-communal warfare, 
though I am far from oblivious of the fact that when inter-communal 
jealousies are acute the men that are more likely to be returned even 
from communal electorates are just those who are noted for the 
ill-will towards the rival community/' 

But the concession in favour of separate electorates made b 
the Hindus in 1909 did not result in Hindu-Moslem unity. The 
came the Lucknow compact in 1916. Under it the Hindu 
gave satisfaction to the Muslims on every count. Yet it did nc 
produce any accord between the two. Six years later anothe 
attempt was made to bring about Hindu-Moslem unity. Th 
All-India Moslem League at its annual session held 
Lucknow in March 1923 passed a resolution * urging th 
establishment of a national pact to ensure unity and harmon 
among the various communities and sects in India and appointe 
a committee to colloberate with committees to be appointed b 
other organizations. The Indian National Congress in its specia 
session held in September 1923 at Delhi under the Presidentship c 
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad passed a resolution reciprocating th 
sentiments expressed by the League. The Congress resolved t 
appoint two committees (i) to revise the constitution and (2) t< 
prepare a draft of a national pact. The reportf of the committe 
on the Indian National Pact was signed by Dr. Ansari an< 
Lala Lajpat Rai and was presented at the session of the Congres 
held at Coconada in 1923. Side by side with the making of the term 
of the Indian National Pact there was forged the Bengal Pact J b] 
the Bengal Provincial Congress committee with the Bengal Muslim! 
under the inspiration of Mr. C. R. Das. Both the Indian Nationa 
Pact and the Bengal Pact came up for discussion in the subjects com 
mittee of the Congress. The Bengal Pact was rejected by 678 vote; 

* For the full text of the Resolution of the League see Indian Annual Register 1923 
Vol. I pp. 935-36. 

f For the Report and the draft terms of the Pact see the Indian Annual Register 1923 
Vol. II supplement pp. 104-108. 

J For .the terms of the Bengal Pact see Ibid p. 127. 

f For the debate on these two Pacts see Ibid pp. 121-127. 


against 458. With regard to the Indian National Pact the Congress 
resolved* that the Committee do call for further opinions on the draft of 
the Pact prepared by them and submit their report by 31 March 1924 
to the A, I. C. C. for its consideration. The Committee however did 
not proceed any further in the matter. This was because the feeling 
among the Hindus against the Bengal Pact was so strong that accord- 
ing to Lala Lajpat Rait it was not considered opportune to proceed 
with the Committee's labours. Moreover Mr. Gandhi was then released 
from jail and it was thought that he would take up the question. 
Dr. Ansari therefore contented himself with handing over to the 
A, I. C. C. the material he had collected. 

Mr. Gandhi took up the threads as soon as he came out of the 
gaol. In November 1924 informal discussions were held in Bombay. 
As a result of these discussioqs an All-Parties Conference was 
constituted and a committee was appointed to deal with the question 
of bringing about unity. The Conference was a truly All-Parties 
Conference in as much as the representatives were drawn from the 
Congress, the Hindu Maha Sabha, the Justice Party, Liberal 
Federation, Indian Christians, Muslim League etc. On the 23rd 
January 1925 a meeting of the Commitee i appointed by the 
All- Parties Conference was held in Delhi at the Western Hotel. 
Mr. Gandhi presided. On the 24th January the Committee 
appointed a representative Sub-Committee consisting of 40 members 
(a) To frame such recommendations as would enable all parties to 
join the Congress (b) To frame a scheme for the representation of 
all communities, races and sub-divisions on the legislative and other 
elective bodies under Swaraj and recommend the best method of 
securing the just and proper representation of the communities in 
the services with due regard to efficiency and (c) To frame a scheme 
of Swaraj that will meet the present needs of the country. The 
Committee was instructed to report on or before the I5th February. 
In the interest of expediting the work some members formed 
themselves into a smaller committee for drawing up a scheme of 

* For the Resolution see Ibid p. 122. 

t See his .statement on the All -Parties Conference held in 1925 in the Indian Quarterly 
Register 1925 Vol. I, p. 70. 

J For the Proceedings of the Committee see the Indian Quarterly Register 1926 VoL I, 
pp. 66-77. 


Swaraj leaving the work of framing the scheme of communal 
representation to the main committee. 

The Swaraj Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of 
Mrs. Besant succeeded in framing its report on the constitution and 
submitted the same to the General Committee of the All- Parties 
Conference. But the Sub-Committee appointed to fiame a scheme 
of communal representation met at Delhi on the ist March and 
adjourned sine die without coming to any conclusion. This was 
due to the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai and other representatives of the 
Hindus would not attend the meeting of the Sub-Committee. 
Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru issued the following 
statement* : 

"Lala Lajpat Rai had asked for a postponement by reason of the 
inability of Messrs. Jayakar, Srinivas lyengar and Jai Ram Das to 
attend. We were unable to postpone the meeting on our own 
responsibility. We therefore informed rLala Lajpat Rai that the 
question of postponement be placed before the meeting. This was 
consequently done but apart from the absence of Lala Lajpat Rai 
and of the gentlemen named by him the attendance was otherwise 
also too meagre for corning to any decision. In our opinion there 
was moreover no material for coming to any definite conclusions nor 
is there likelihood of any being reached in the near future " 

There is no doubt that this statement truly summed up th< 
state of mind of the parties concerned. The late Lala Lajpat Rai 
the spokesman of the Hindus on the Committee, had already said ir 
an article in the 'Leader' of Allahabad that there was no immediate 
hurry for a fresh pact and that lie declined to accept the view thai 
a Hindu majority in some provinces and a Muslim majority in other,' 
was the only way to Hindu-Moslem Unity. 

The question of Hindu- Moslem Unity was again taken uj 
in 1927. This attempt was made just prior to the Simon Commissior 
inquiry, in the hope that it would be as successful as the attempi 
made prior to the Montagu-Chelmsford inquiry in 1917 and whicl 
had fructified in the Lucknow Pact. As a preliminary, a Conference 
of leading Muslims was held in Delhi on the 2Oth March 1927 a 
which certain proposalsf for safeguarding the interest of the Muslims 

ibid p. 77. 

t These proposals will be found *in the Indian Quarterly Register 1927 Vol. I, p. 32 
Tbete proposals subsequently became the basis of Mr. Jinnah's 14 points. 


These proposals which were known as the Delhi proposals wei 
considered by the Congress at its session held in Madras i 
December 1927. At the same time the Congress passed a resolution 
authorizing its working Committee to confer with similar committee 
to be appointed by other organizations to draft a Swaraj constitutio 
for India. The Liberal Federation and the Muslim League passe 
similar resolutions appointing their representatives to join in ih 
deliberations. Other organizations were also invited by the Congres 
working Committee to send their spokesmen. The Ail parties Cor 
vention t as it came to be called met on I2th February 19^8 an 
appointed a Committee to frame a constitution. The Committe 
prepared a Report with a draft of the constitution which is know 
as the Nehru Report. The Report was placed before the All-Partie 
Convention which met under the presidentship of Dr. Ansari o 
22nd December 1928 at Calcutta just prior to the Congress sessioi 
On the ist January 1929 the Convention adjourned 'sine die 
without coming to any agreement, on any question, not even on th 
Communal question. 

This is rather surprizing because the points of difference 
between the Muslim proposals and the proposals made in the Nehr 
Committee's Report were not substantial. That this is so is quit 
obvious from the speech]! of Mr. Jinnah in the All-Parties Conventio 
in support of his amendments. Mr. Jinnah wanted four amendment 
to be made in the Report of the Nehru Committee. Speaking o 
his first amendment relating to the Muslim demand for 33^- per cer 
representation in the Central Legislature Mr. Jinnah said: 

"The Nehru Report has stated that according to the scheme which 
they propose the Muslims are likely to get one-third in the Central 
Legislature and perhaps more, and it is argued that the Punjab and 
Bengal will get much more than their population proportion. What 
we feel is this. If one third is going to be obtained by Muslims then 
the method which you have adopted is not quite fair to the provinces 
where the Muslims are in a minority because the Punjab and Bengal 
will obtain more than their population basis in the Central Legislature. 

1 For the Resolution of the Congress on these proposal see Ibid 1927 Vol. II, pp* 397-95 

For the origin, history and composition of the All Parties 
Report Ibid 1928 Vol. I, pp. 1-142. 

See the Indian Quarterly Register 1928 Vol. I, pp. 123-24. 

f For the origin, history and composition of the All Parties Convention and for the tea 
of the Report Ibid 1928 Vol. I, pp. 1-142. 


You are going to give to the rich mow and keeping the poor according 
to population. It may be sound reasoning but it is not wisdom 

"Therefore, if the Muslims are, as the Nehru Report suggest, to get 
one-third, or more, they cannot give the Punjab or Bengal more, but 
let six or seven extra seats be distributed among provinces which are 
already in a very small minority, such as, Madras and Bombay, 
because, remember, if Sind is separated, the Bombay Province will 
be -reduced to something like for 8 per cent. There are other 
provinces where we have small minorities. This is the reason why 
we say, fix one-third and let it be distributed among Muslims 
according to our own adjustment." 

His second amendment related to the reservation of seats on 
population basis in the Punjab and in Bengal i.e. the claim to 
a statutory majority. On this Mr. Jinnah said : 

" You remember that originally proposals emanated from certain 
Muslim leaders in March 1927 known as the "Delhi Proposals." 
They were dealt with by the A. I. C. C. in Bombay and at the 
Madras Congress and the Muslim League in Calcutta last year 
substantially endorsed at least this part of the proposal. I am not 
going into the detailed arguments. It really reduces itself into one 
proposition, that the voting strength of Mahomedans in the Punjab and 
Bengal, although they are in a majority, is not in proportion to their 
population. That was one of the reasons. The Nehru Report has 
now found a substitute and they say that if adult franchise is 
established then there is no need for reservation, but in the event of 
its not being established we want to have no doubt that in that case 
there shoud be reservation for Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal, 
according to their population, but they shall not be entitled to 
additional seats/' 

His third amendment was in regard to residuary powers which 
the Nehru Committee had vested in the Central Government. In 
moving his amendment that they should be lodge in the Provincial 
Governments Mr. Jinnah pleaded : 

"Gentlemen, this is purely a .constitutional question and has 
nothing to do with the Communal aspect. We strongly hold 
I know Hindus will say Muslims are carried away by communal 
consideration and Muslims will say Hindus are carried away by 
communal consideration we strongly hold the view that, if you 
examine this question carefully, we submit that the residuary powers 
should rest with the provinces/' 


His fourth amendment was concerned with the separation c 
Sind. The Nehru Committee had agreed to the separation of Sin 
but had subjected it to one priviso namely that the separation shout 
come "only on the establishment of the system of Governmen 
outlined in the report." Mr. Jinnah in moving for the deletion c 
the proviso said : 

" We feel this difficulty Suppose the Government choose, 

within the next six months, or a year or two j^ears, to separate Sind 
before the establishment of a Government under this constitution. 

Are the Mahomedans to say, < we do not want it' .So long as 

this clause stands its meaning is that Mahomedans should oppose its 
separation until simultaneously a Government is established under 
this constitution. We say delete these words and I am supporting 
my argument by the fact that you do not make such a remark about 

the N. W. F. Provinces The Committee says it cannot 

accept it as the resolution records an agreement arrived at by parties 
who signed at Lucknow. With the utmost deference to the members 

of the Committee I venture to say that that is not valid ground 

Are we bound, in this convention, bound because a particular 
resolution was passed by an agreement between certain persons." 

These amendments show that the gulf between the Hindus anc 
Muslims was not in any way a wide one. Yet there was no desire tc 
bridge the same. It was left to the British Government to do whict 
the Hindus and Muslims failed to do and it did it by the Communal 

The Poona Pact between the Hindus and the Depressed 
classes gave another spurt to the efforts to bring about unity* 
During the months of November and December 1932 Muslims and 
Hindus did their best to come to some agreement. Muslims met in 
their All- Parties Conferences, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs met in 
Unity Conferences. Proposals and counter proposals were made- 
But nothing came out of these negotiations to replace the Award 
by a Pact and were in the end abandoned after the Committee had 
held 23 sittings. 

Just as attempts were made to bring about unity on political 
questions similarly attempts were also made to bring about unity 
on social and religious questions. 

*For an account of these efforts see the Indian Quarterly Kegistet 1082 Vol. 11, 
p. 296 et aeq. 


The social and religious differences arise over three questions 
(i) Cow slaughter, (2) Music before Mosque and (3) Conversions. 
Attempts to bring about unity over these questions were also made. 
The first attempt in this direction was made in 1923 when the 
Indian National Pact was proposed. It failed. Mr. Gandhi 
was then in gaol. Mr. Gandhi was released from gaol on the 
5th February 1924. Stunned by the destruction of his work for 
Hindu-Moslem Unity Mr. Gandhi decided to go on a twenty-one 
days' fast, holding himself morally responsible for the murderous 
riots that had taken place between Hindus and Muslims. Advantage 
was taken of the fast to gather leading Indians of all communities 
at a Unity Conference*, which was attended also by the metropolitan 
of Calcutta. The Conference held prolonged sittirgs from September 
26th to October 2nd, 1924. The members of the Conference 
pledged themselves to use their utmost endeavours to enforce the 
principles of freedom of conscience and religion and condemn 
any deviation from them even under provocation. A Central 
National Panchayet was appointed with Mr. Gandhi as the 
chairman. The Conference laid down certain fundamental rights 
relating to liberty of holding and expressing religious beliefs and 
following religious practices, sacredness of places of worship, cow 
slaughter, and music before mosques, with a statement of the 
limitations they must be subject to. This Unity Conference did not 
produce peace between the two communities. It only produced 
a lull in the roicing which had become the order of the day. Between 
1925 and 1926 rioting was renewed with an intensity and malignity 
unknown before. Shocked by this rioting Lord Irwin,the then Viceroy 
of India, in his address to the Central Legislature on 2gth August 1927 
made an appeal to the two communities to stop the rioting and 
establish amity. Lord Irwin's extortation to establish amity 
was followed by another Unity Conference which was known as the 
Simla Unity Conference*}-. This Unity Conference met on the 
3Oth August 1927 and issued an appeal beseeching both the 
communities to support the leaders in their efforts to arrive at 
a satisfactory settlement. The Conference appointed a Unity 

* Pattabhi Sitarammaya History of the Congress page 532. 

t For the proceedings of this conference see the Indian Quarterly Register Vol. TI, 
pp. 39-50. 


Committee which satin Simla from i6th to 22nd September under 
chairmanship of Mr. Jinriah. No conclusions were reached on any 
of the principal points involved in the cow and music questions and 
others pending before the committee were not even touched. Some 
members felt that the committee might break up. The Hindu 
members pressed that the committe should meet again on some 
future convenient date. The Muslim members of the committee 
were first divided in their opinion, but at last agreed to break up the 
committee and the President was requested to summon a meeting 
if he received a rcquisiton within six weeks from eleven specified 
members. Such a requision never came and the committe never 
met again. 

The Simla Conference having failed Mr. Srinivas lyengar the 
then President of the Congress called a special conference of Hindus 
and Muslims which sat in Calcutta between the 27th and 28th October 
1927. It came to be known as the Calcutta Unity Conference*. The 
Conference passed certain resolutions on the three burning questions. 
But the resolution had no support behind them as neither the 
Hindu Mahasabha nor the Muslim League was represented at the 

At one time it was possible to say that Hindu-Moslem Unity 
was an ideal which not only must be realized but could be realized 
and leaders were blamed for not making sufficient efforts for its 
realization. Such was the view expressed in 1911 even by Maulana 
Mahommed AH who had not then made any particular efforts to 
achieve Hindu-Moslem Unity. \Vriting in the Comrade of 
I4th January 1911 Mr. Mahommad Ali saidf : 

" We have no faith in the cry that India is united. If India was 
united where was the need of dragging the venerable President of 
this year's Congress from a distant home ? The bare imagination of 

a feast will not dull the e.l^j of hunger. We hive loss faith still in 
the sanctimoniousness that transmutes in its subtle alchemy 

a rapacious monopoly into fervent patriotism the person we 

love best, (bar the most, anl tru^t the least is the impatient idealist. 
Geothe said of Byron be was a prodigious poet, but that when 

* For the proceedings of the Conference see Ibid pp. oO-ftS. 

t Qnolttrl in his Presidential ruUJrpps at (Wnn.o/lfi Sf-sion of tho Ooncrnj^s 1923, 



he reflected he was a child. Well, we think no better and no 
worse of the man who combines great ideals and a greater impatience. 
So many efforts, well meaning as well as ill-begotten, have failed in 
bringing unity to this distracted land, that we cannot spare even 
cheap and scentless flowers of sentiment for the grave of another 
ill-judged endeavour. We shall not make the mistake of guming 
together pieces of broken glass, and then cry over the unsuccessful 
result, or blame the refractory material. In other words we shall 
endeavour to face the situation boldly, and respect facts, howsoever 
ugly and ill-favoured. It is poor statesmanship to slur over 
inconvenient realities, and not the least important success in 
achieving unity is the honest and frank recognition of the deep-seated 
prejudices that hinder it and the j r awning differences that 

Looking back on the history of these 30 years one can well 
ask whether Hindu-Moslem Unity has been realized ? Whether 
efforts have not been made for its realization ? And whether any 
efforts remains to be made ? The history of the last 30 years shows 
that Hindu-Moslem Unity has not been realised. On the contrary 
there now exists the greatest disunity between them : that efforts 
sincere and persistent have been made to achieve it and that 
nothing new remains to be done to achieve it except surender by 
one party to the other. If any one who is not in the habit of 
cultivating optimism where there is no justification for it said that the 
pursuit of Hindu- Moslem Unity is like a mirage and that the idea 
must now be given up no one can have the courage to call him 
a pessimist or an impatient idealist. It is for the Hindus to say 
how long they will engage themselves in this vain pursuit inspite 
of the tragic end of all their past endeavours or give up the pursuit 
of unity and try for a settlement on another basis. 

In the second place it must be admitted that the Muslim point 
of view has undergone a complete revolution. How great is the 
revolution can be seen by reference to the past pronouncements of 
some of those who insist on the two nation theory and believe that 
Pakistan is the only solution of the Hindu Moslem problem. 
Among these Mr. Jinnah, of course, must be accepted as the 
foremost. The revolution in his views on Hindu Moslem question 
is striking, if it is not staggering. To realize the nature, character 


and vastness of this revolution it is necessary to know. his pronounce- 
ments in the past relating to the subject so that they may be 
compared with those he is making now. 

A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the 
year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim Community waited upon 
Lord Miiito and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim Com- 
munity. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the 
deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or 
whether he was invited to join but he declined is not known. But 
the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim 
to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906. 

In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial 
Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill.*. In 
tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said : 

" I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to 
my people in the Council, nor consistent^ with one's self-respect is 
co-operation possible with a Government that shows such utter 
disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the 
Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people 

In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select 
Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India 
Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed 
by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee 
on the Hindu- Moslem question. 


Q. 3806 You appear on behalf of the Moslem League that 
is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation 
in India ? Yes. 

Q. 3807. I was very much struck by the fact that neither in 
your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this 
morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the 
Mohammedans in India : is that because you did not wish to say 
anything ? No, but because I take it the Southborough Committees 
have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committe to 

* The Bill notwithstanding the protest of the Indian members of the Council was 
passed into law and became Act XI of 1919 as " The Anarchical and Revolutionary 
Crimes Act." . 


put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in 
the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Mussalmans on 
that occasion. 

Q. 3809. On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask 
this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ? 
I am authorised to say that to ask you to reject the proposal of 
the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e. to give the 
Bengal Muslims more representation than was given to them by the 
Lucknow Pact], 

Q. 3810. You said you spoke from the point of view of India. 
You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ? I do. 

Q. 3811. Holding that view, do you contemplate the early 
disappearance of separate communal representation of the 
Mohammedan community ? I think so. 

Q. 3812. That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you 
wish to do away in political life with any distinction between 
Mohammedans and Hindus ? Yes. Nothing will please me more 
than when that daj" comes. 

Q. 3813. You do not think it is true to say that the 
Mohammedans of India have many special political interests, not 
merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly 
anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community ? There 
are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things 
really which you can call matters of special interest for them 
I mean secular things. 

Q. 3814. I am only referring to them, of course ? And 
therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not 
very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear. 

Q. 3815. It is true, at the same time, that the Mahomedans 
in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government 
of India ? They do : a very, No, because what you propose to 
do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold 
very strong sentiments and very strong views. 

Q. 3816. Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on 
behalf of the Mahommedan community, are so anxious to got the 
Government of India more responsible to an electorate ? No. 

Q. 3817. Do you think it is possible, consistently with 
remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy 
and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have 
another ? Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy 


at alK What the Moslems of India feel is that it is a very difficult 
position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head. 

Q, 3818. Of one community ? Of the Sunni sect, but that is 
the largest ; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The 
Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to 
our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel 
very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from 
the Ottoman Knap ire that they should remain with the Ottoman 
Empire under the Sultan. 

Q. 3819. I do not want to get away iroiu the Reform Bill on 
to foreign policy I say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. 
Your point is whether in India the Moslems will adopt a certain 
attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslem all 
over the world. 

O. 3820. My point is, are they seeking for some control over 
the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign 
policy on the Government of India ? No ; 


O. 3853- Would it not be an advantage in 

the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e. a communal riot] if the 
maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of 
the Government ? I clo not think so, if you ask me, but I do not 
want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say. 

O. 3&54- It is with 110 desire to bring up old troubles that I ask 
the question ; I would like to forget them ? H you ask me, very 
often these riots are based oil some misunderstanding, and it is 
because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has 
enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian 
States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and 
I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, 
that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, " How do you 
account for this ? " and he told me, "As soon as there is some trouble 
we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking 
one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as 
soon as we come to know we move that the police officer from that 
place, and there is an end of it." 

Q- 3855. That is a useful piece of information, but the fact 
remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side 
and Mohammedan 011 the other. Would it be an advantage at a time 


like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the 
other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ? 

Q. 3856. It would? If I thought otherwise I should be 
casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister I would make 
bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and 
what is right. 

Q' 3857. I can understand that you would do more than justice to 
the other side ; but even then, there is what might be called the 
subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is 
the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour 
some feeling of suspicion ? With regard to one section or the other, 
you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that 
justice would not be done ? 

Q. 3858. Yes : that is quite apart from the objective part of it ? 
My answer is this : That these difficulties are fast disappearing. 
Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer 
was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there 
was a single Mohammedan they were all Hindus and I never 
heard any complaint. Recently that has been so. I quite agree with 
you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now 
suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing. 


Q. 3892. You said just now about the 

communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, 
that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish 
communal representation, which was at present proposed to be 
established and is established in order that Mahomedans may have 
their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. 
How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be 
realised ? I can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything 
more than that : I can give you this, which will give you some idea : 
that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League Sessions at Agra, we 
put this matter to the test whether separate electorates should be 
insisted upon or not by the Mussalnrans, and we got a division, and 
that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes 
represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of 
doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd I do not 
remember the exact -number were for keeping the separate 


electorate. That was in 191 3. Since then I have had many 
opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussalmans leaders ; 
and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. 
I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. 
Perhaps the next Inquiry may hear something about it. 

Q- 3893. You think at the next Inquiry the Mahommedans will 
ask to be absorbed into the whole ? Yes, I think the next Inquiry 
will probably hear something about it. 

Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the 
Muslim League he did not allow his membership of the League 
to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in 
the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, 
Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also .of 
the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint 
Parliamentary Committee he was a member of all three bodies 
although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the 
Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home 
Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an 
independent but a nationalist is shown by his relationship with 
the Khilafatist Mussalmans. In 1920 the Mussalmans organized 
the Khilafat Conference. It become so powerful an organization 
that the Muslim League went underground and lived in a state 
of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim 
leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform 
unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was 
the only platform for a Muslim to meet Muslims. Even then 
Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no 
doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Mussalman 
with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now 
says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not 
join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian 
Mussalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating 
to Muslims outside India. 

After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience 
and boycott of Councils Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became 
its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested 
when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. 
There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the editor of the Times of India 


written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the 
present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion 
in the past. The letter* reads as follows : 

To the Editor of "The Times of India " 

Sir, I wish a^u'n to correct the statement which is attributed to 
me and to which 3 r ou have given currency more than once und now 
again repeated by your correspondent "Banker" in the second 
column of your issue of the ist October that I denounced the 
Confess as "a Hindu Institution." I publicly corrected this 
misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it 
appeared ; but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper 
and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige." 

After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had 
shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India the Muslim 
League was resusciated. The session of the League held in Bombay 
on 3Oth December 1924 under the Presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali 
was a lively one. Both Mr. Jiiinah and Mr. Mahommacl Ali took 
part in itf- 

In this session of the League a resolution \vas moved which 
affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim 
Associations of India representing different shades of polititical 
thought meeting in a Conference at any early date at Delhi or at 
some other central place with a view to develope " a united and 
sound practial activity " to supply the needs of the Muslim 
Community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the Resolution saidj : 

"The object was to organize the Muslim Community, not with 
a view to quarrel with the Hindu Community, but with a view to 
unite and co-operate with it for their motherland. He was sure 
once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the 
Hindu Mahasabha and declare to the world that Hindus and 
Mahomedans are brother." 

* 1'ubHshorl in tho Times of Indin of :">-]< }-!?.">. 

f All*. Ma.homm.irl AH in his presidential axldra*^ to thoConj^rus^ nl ( Nionn.'KL'ihuniou 
said : " Mr. Jinnah would soon eomo bar>k to us (chfr-*) I irmy ircontion thrit an infidl b 
ft Kafnr and a Katfir hnnorre-t nn infidel ; likewise, \\hnn -VJr. Jifn.-ih wns in the Co 
I Wfifi not with him in tbosvj days, ii"<l \vht r ? I was in rhe GVingi'fjt-s an<l in tho Muslim I 
ho was away from me. I hope some day we wotdd reconcile (Lifirf.y?i'i' j r)." [ 

J From the Report in tho Times of Inrlin, 1^1 January 1925. 


The League also passed another resolution in th^ sarae session 
for appointing a Committee of 33 prominent Mussalmans to 
formulate the political demands of the Muslim Community. IPbe 
resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution 
Mr. Jinnah* : 

" Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of tfye 
League as a commimalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, 
a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best 
and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land 
(Hear, Hear and Applause), But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots 
were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the 
situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims 
who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the 
countrys' Services, They were talking of communal unity, but whore 
was unity ? It held to be achieved by arriving at some suitable 
settlement. He knew, he said amidst deafening cheers, that his 
fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but 
wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as 
a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real 
block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few 
mischief makers 011 both sides." 

And he did not hesitate to tell the mischief makers in the 
following stern language which could only emanate from an .e^r^est 
nationalist. He saidf to them in his capacity as the President of the 
session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 : 

" If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to 
continue slaves of .Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves ancjl 
gratify petty vainty over petty matters, Englishmen being our 

In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the 
other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Mpslem 
question oq the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly sa^dj 
from the League platform : 

" I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say 
that the overwhelming majority of the Myssalxnans firmly g.nd 
honestly belie\ r e that it is the only method by which they can be 

"The Indian Quarterly Register 1924 Vol. II p. 48JU 
fSee the Indian Quarterly Review 1924 Vol. I, p. 658. 
JThe Indian Quarterly Register 1927 Vol. I, p. 3?, 



In 1928 Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott pf the 
Simon Commission, , He did so even though the Hindus and 
Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the 
cost of splitting the League into two. 

Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about 
to break on the communal rock Mr. Jinnah resented being named as 
a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that" he 
preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitia- 
tion of the British Government. Addressing* the U. P. Muslim 
Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 1931 Mr. Jinnah 
said : 

41 The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely 
essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven's 
sake close all your ranks and files and stop this internecine war. 
I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability 
before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad 
and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of 
India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences, 
whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the 
moment to quarrel between ourselves. 

* Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section 
of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly 
misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of 
Mr, Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus 
and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that 
although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward 
this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two 

Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said : " As to the most important 
question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim 
settlement all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the 
Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and 
Bengal and if that is conceded, I think, a settlement can be arrived 
at in a very short time. 

4 The next question that arises is one of separate-as.-joiiit electorates. 
As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and 
Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint 
electorate. (Applause). But I also know that there is a large body 

t The In4ten Annual Register 1931, Vol. H, pp. 230-231, 



of Muslims and I believe a majority of Muslims who are holding 
on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have 
a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and 
trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both 
Hindus jand Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when 
they get their freedom, we would rise to the occasion and probably 
separate electorate will go sooner than most of vis think. 

' Therefore, I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims 
first ; I am- for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and 
Mahommedaiis. This is not a time for argument, not a time for 
propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the 
two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and 
I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslims question is not 
settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and 
that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and 
authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, 
Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims 
whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus 
give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the 
" blank cheque " which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want 
a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit 
Jawaharlal Nehru says : " Give us a blank cheque " when Mr. Patel 
says : " Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi 
pen 011 a Swadeshi paper " they are not co minimalists and I am 
a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. 
I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position, to settle the 
question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in 
our country. 

' One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the 
time of the Round Table Conference, it is now an open book and 
anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself I observed the 
one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of 
Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India 
sacred, and believe me^ if you care to read the proceedings of the 
Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duty that 
I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent 
and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get 
anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them/ 

Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, 
they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to 


Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible 
in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that 
migltt be passed at the conference/' 

As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim 
ideology I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat 
All who is now a follower of Jinnah and a staunch supporter of 

When the Muslim League split into two over the question of 
cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by 
Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring cooperation and another section led 
by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat All 
belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the? 
League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. 
The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. 
Mr. Barkat Ali who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League 
attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and 
moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The 
basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the 
resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said * : 

" For the first time in the history of the League there was a change 
in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand 
of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to 
the principle of separate electorates." 

In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Muslim Party under 
the leadership of Dr. Ansarif. The Nationalist Muslim Party was 
a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and 
wa prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any 
amendments not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting 
upon. Mr. Barkat Ali who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of 
the League left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined 
the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist 
Mr* Barkat Ali then was can be seen by hisltrenchent and vehement 
attack on Sir Muhammad Iqbal for his having put forth in his 
pfeeideiitM addtess to the annual session of the All-India Muslim 
League hfeld at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme f for the division 

Quarterly Register 1027 Vol. II, p. 448. 
tThe Indian Quarterly Register 1929, Vol. II, p. 350. 
J For his speech see The Indian Annual Register 1930, Vol. II, pp. 334-345. 

chap. XH] NATIONAL FkusTkAltoN 

of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali 
and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held 
in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference, and Mr* Barkat 
Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he 
then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling.* Reiterating and 
reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik 
Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, 
said : 

"We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of 
India. India, the countiy of our birth and the place with which all 
our most valued and dearly cherished associatiDns are knit, must 
claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to 
be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to 
appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and 
Indian^afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, 
meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive 
of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in 
conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and 
Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of 
India, must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether 
economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, 
therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, 
who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of 
India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim 
brethren outside India i. e. the Turks and the Egyptians or the 
Arabs, and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy, 
we can never allow that sjinpathy to work to the detriment of 
the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those 
countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery 
and fountain of that sympathy' is really great. And if ever the time 
comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the 
Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its 
people, no amount of pan-Islamic feeling, whatever it may mean, 
can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder 
with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties. 

Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in 
any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of 
natrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of 

' Indian Annual Register 1031, Vol. II, pp. 234-235. 


an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N. W. Frontier passes, 
but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are 
fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much 
defend India's liberties as non-Muslim India, even* if the invader 
happens to be a follower of Islam. 

Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in 
a united India not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the 
Hindu or a the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that 
community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we 
refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into * 
a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu 
and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies 
abnormally orthodox mentalities of their pnrty, we offer our full throated 
opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and 
utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all 
that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is 
also contrary to and opposed to India's chief historical tradition. 

India was one in the daj"s of Asoka and Chandragupta and India 
remained one even when the sceptre and rod of imperial sway passed 
from Hindu into Moghal or Muslim hands. And India shall remain 
one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached 
those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not 
be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from 
our very faces. 

The conception of a divided India, which, Sir Mohammad Iqbal 
put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from 
the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually 
become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam I am glad to be 
able say that Sir Mohammad Iqbal has since recanted it must not 
therefore delude anybody into thinking that is Islam's conception of 
the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Mohammad Iqbal had not recanted 
it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, 
I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as 
something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation 
of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that 
not only must there be no division of India into communal provinces 
but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the 
boundaries of India and must cribbed, cabined and confined 
within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. IqbaTs 
conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister 
proposals of sdme Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab* 


Witli a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its 
people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of 
distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen 
representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true 
democracy, namely, adult franchise, and though the medium of joint 
electorates and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial 
execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant 
or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of 
the land, you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay 
before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have realty 
liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of 
the Nationalist Muslim Paity here, were it not that the much 
discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed 
proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it. 

Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates 
at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise 
had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population 
of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal 
passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning 
the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma, we 
feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, 
separate electorates should have no place whatever." 

Such were the views which Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat All 
held on Nationalism, on Separate Electorates and on Pakistan 
and which are so diametrically opposed to the views now held 
by them on these very problems. 

In the third place it must be realized that this Muslim demand 
for Pakistan which is the result of this revolutionary Muslim 
ideology is not devoid of justification acceptable to political 
philosophers. Many people are under the impression that there is 
no moral justification for it. It is however a great mistake. 

The philosophical justification for Pakistan rests upon the 
distinction between a Community and a Nation. With regard to this 
distinction two things must be noted. In the first place it is 
recognized comparatively recently. Political philosophers for a long 
time were concerned, mainly, with the controversy summed up in 
the two questions, how far the right ot a mere majority to rule 


the minority be accepted as a rational basis for Government and 
how far the legitimacy of a Government be said to depend upon the 
consent of the gov^ned. Even those who insisted, that the legitimacy 
of a Government depended upon the consent of the governed remained 
content with a victory for their proposition and did not care to probe 
further into the matter. They did not feel the necessity for making any 
distinctions within the category of the " governed/' They evidently 
thought that it was a matter of no moment whether those who were 
included in the category of the governed formed a Community or 
a Nation. Force of circumstances have, however, compelled political 
philosophers to accept this distinction. In the second place it is 
not a mere distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which is 
. substantial and the difference is consequentially fundamental. That 
this distinction between a Community and a Nation is fundamental, 
is clear from the difference in the political rights which political 
philosophers are prepared to permit to a Community and those they 
are prepared to allow to a Nation, against the Government established 
by law. To a Community they are^prepared to allow the right of 
insurrection only. But to a Nation they are willing to concede the 
right of disruption. The distinction between the two is as obvious as it 
is fundamental. A right of insurrection is restricted only to insisting 
on a change in the mode and manner of government. The right of 
disruption is greater than the right of insurrection and extends to the 
secession of a group of the members of a State with a secession of 
the portion of the State's territory in its occupation. One wonders 
what must be the basis of this difference. Unfortunately, those 
writers on political philosophy who have discussed this subject 
have given their reasons for the justification of a Com- 
munity's right to insurrection* and of a Nation's right to 

* Si dg wick justifies it in these words : " the evils of insurrection may reasonably 

be thought to be oxitweighed by the evils of submission, when the question Ht i^sueis of vital 

importance insurrection may sometimes induce redress of grievances, even when 

the insurgents are olearly weaker in physical force ; since it may bring home to tjhe majority 
the intensity of the sense of injury aroused by their actions. For similar reasons, again 
a conflict in prospect may be anticipated by a compromise ; in short, the fear of provoking 
disorder may be a salutory check on the persons constitutionally invested with supreme 

powsr under a democratic as under other forms of Government.... I conceive, theu that 

a moral right of insurrection must bo held to exist in the most popularity governed 
community " Etwwyal* of PMtioa (1929) pp, 046-47. 


to demand disruption*. The difference comes to this : a community 
has a right to safeguards, a nation has a right to demand separation. 
The difference is at once clear and crucial But they have not given 
any reasons why the right of one is limited to insurrection and 
why that of the other extends to disruption. They have not 
even raised such a question. Nor are the reasons apparent on 
the face of them. But it is both interesting and instructive to 
know why this difference is made. To my mind the reasons 
for this difference pertain to questions of ultimate destiny. A 
State either consists of a series of communities or it consists of 
a series of nations. In a State which is composed of a series of 
communities one community may be arrayed against another 
community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in 
the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in 
a State which is composed of a series of nations when one nation 
rises against the other the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate 
destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations 
and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their 
political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explana- 
tion. It is merely another way of stating why the community 
has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different 
kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied 
with it. AH that it wants is a change in the mode and form of 
Government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate 

* This is what Sidgwiek has to say on the right to disruption : *' some of those 

who hold that a government to be legitimate, must rest on the consent of the governed, 
appear not to shrink from drawing this inference : they appear to qualify the right of the 
majority of members of a state to rule by allowing the claim of a minority that suffers from 
the exercise of this right to secede and form a new state, when it is in a majority in 

a continuous portion of its old state's territory and I conceive that there are cases in 

which the true interests of the whole may be promoted by disruption. For instance, where 
two portions of a State's territory are separated by a long interval of sea, or other physical 
obstacles, from any very active intercommunication, and when, from differences of race or 
religion, past history, or present social conditions, their respective inhabitants have divergent 
nee is and demands in respect of legislation and other governmental interference, it may 
easily be inexpedient that they should have a common Government for internal affairs ; 
while if, at the same time, their external relations, apart from their union, would be very 
different, it is quite possible that each part may lose more through the risk of implication 
JQ the other's quarrels, than it is likely to gain from the aid of its military force. Under 
such conditions as these, 'it is not to be desired that any sentiment of historical patriotism, 
or any pride in the national ownership of an extensive territory, should permanently prevent 
a. peaceful dissolution of the incoherent whole into its natural parts " Ibid pp. 048-49, 

4 3 


destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because 
it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of Government- 
Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not 
be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved 
their produce and even ethics demands that the bond shall be 
dissolved and they shall be freed each to purpose its own destiny. 


While it is necessary to admit that the efforts at Hindu-Moslem 
unity have failed and that the Muslim ideology has undergone 
a complete revolution it is equally necessary to know the precise 
causes which have produced these effects. The Hindus say that the 
British policy of divide and rule is the real cause of this failure and 
of this ideological revolution. There is nothing surprising in this. 
The Hindus having cultivated the Irish mentality to have no other 
politics except that of being always against the Government are 
ready to blame the Government for everything including bad 
weather. But time has come to discard this facile explanation so 
dear to the Hindus. For it fails to take into account two very 
important circumstances. In the first place it overlooks the fact that 
the policy of divide and rule, allowing that the British do resort to it, 
cannot succeed unless there are elements which make division possible, 
and further if the policy succeeds for such a long time it means that the 
elements which divide are more or less permanent and irreconsilable 
and are not transitory or superficial. Secondly it forgets that 
Mr. Jinnah who represents this ideological transformation can never 
be suspected of being a tool in the hands of the British, even by the 
worst of his enemies. He may be too self-opinionated, an 
egotist without the mask and has perhaps a degree of arrogance 
which is not compensated by any extraordinary intellect or 
equipment. It may be that on that account he is unable fo reconcile 
himself to a second place and work with others in that capacity for 
a public cause. He may not be overflowing with ideas although he 
is not, a his <?riti<?s make him out to be ? an empty headed dandy 

chap. XIl] tfAtiONAt FRUSTRATION " 

Hying upon the ideas of others. It may be that his fame is built up 
more upon art and less on substance. At the same time it is 
doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective 
incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Any one who knows 
what his relations with the British Government have been will admit 
that he has always beeo their critic, if indeed, he has not been their 
adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit 
that he has never been a soldier of fortune. Sheer common sense 
would suggest that the customary Hindu explanation must fail to 
account for the ideological transformation of Mr. Jinnah. 

"What is then the real explanation of these tragic phenomena? 
this failure of the efforts for unity, this transformation in the Muslim 
ideology ? 

The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Moslem Unity 
lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus 
and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference. . It is an antagonism 
as distinguished from mere difference and that this antagonism is 
not to be attributed to material causes. It is spiritual in its 
character. It is formed by causes which take their origin in 
historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy of which political 
antipathy is only a reflection. These form one deep river of 
discontent which, being regularly fed by these sources, keeps on 
mounting to a head and overflowing its ordinary channels. Any 
current of water running from another spring, when it joins it, instead 
of altering the colour or diluting its strength becomes lost in the main 
stream. The silt of this antagonism which this current has deposited, 
has become permanent and deep. So long as this silt keeps on 
accumulating and so long as this antagonism lasts it is unnatural 
to expect this antipathy between Hindus and Moslems to give place 
to unity. 

Like the Christians and Moslems in the Turkish Empire the 
Hindus and Moslems of India have met as enemies on many fields^ 
and the result of the struggle has often brought them into the 
relation of conqutftprs and conquered. Whichever" party has* 
triumphed, a great gulf has remained fixed between the two and 
their enforced political union either under the Moghals or the 
British instead of passing over, as in so many other cases, into 
organic unity, has only accentuated their mutual antipathy. Neither 


religion nor social code can bridge this gulf. The two faiths are 
mutually exclusive and at their core and centre are irreconcilable. 
, There seems to be an inherent antagonism between the two which 
centuries have not been able to dissolve. Notwithstanding the efforts 
made to bring the cree.ds together by the of Reformers like 
Akbar and Kabir, the ethical realities behind each have still remained, 
to use a mathematical phrase, surds which nothing can alter or make 
integers capable of having a common denominator. A Hindu 
can go from Hinduism to Christianity without causing any 
commotion or shock. But he cannot pass from Hinduism to Islam 
without causing a communal riot, certainly not without causing 
qualms. That shows the depth of the antagonism which divides the 
Hindus from the Musalmans. 

If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the 
matter of their faith they also prevent their social assimilation. That 
Hinduism prohibits intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims is 
quite well known. But this narrow-mindedness is not the vice of 
Hinduism only. Islam is equally narrow in its social code. It also 
prohibits intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus. With these 
social laws there can be no social assimilation and consequently no 
socialization of ways, modes and outlooks, 110 blunting of the edges 
and no modulation of age old angularities. 

There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are 
responsible for keeping the sore between Hindus and Muslims an 
open and a running sore. Hinduism is said to divide people and in 
contrast Islam is said to bind people together. But this is only 
a half truth. For Islam divides as inexhorably as it binds. Islam 
is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between 
Muslims and Non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very 
alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the 
universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for 
Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to 
those within that corporation. For those who are outside the 
corporation there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second 
defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and 
is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance 
of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his 


but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Moslem ibi bene 
ibi patria is unthinkable. Whereever there is the rule of Islam 
there is his own ccfuntry. In other words Islam can never allow a true 
Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as 
his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana 
Mohammad AH a great Indian but a true Muslim preferred to be 
buried in Jerusalem rather than in India. 

The real explanation of the ideological transformation of the 
Muslim leaders is not to be attributed to any dishonest drift in their 
opinion. It appears to be the dawn of a new vision pointing to 
a new destiny symbolized by a ne\v name, Pakistan- The Muslims 
appear to have started a new worship of a new destiny for the first 
time. But this is really not so. The worship is new because the sun 
of their new destiny which was so far hidden in the clouds has 
only now made its appearance in full glow. The magnetism of this 
new destiny cannot but draw the Muslims towards it. Its magnetism 
is so great that even men like Mr. Jinnah have been violently 
shaken and have not been able to resist its force. This destiny 
spreads itself out in a concrete form over the map of India. 
No one who just looks at the map can miss it. It lies there 
as though it is deliberately planned by Providence as a separate 
National State for Muslims. Not only is this new destiny capable 
of being easily worked out and put in concrete shape, it is also catching 
because it opens up the possibilities of realizing the Muslim idea of 
linking up all the Muslim kindred in one Islamic State and thus 
avert the danger of Muslims in different countries adopting the 
nationality of the country to which they belong and thereby bring 
about the distintegration of the Islamic brotherhood*. With the 
separation of Pakistan from Hindustan there is nothing to prevent 
Pakistan from joining Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey and 
Egypt and forming a federation of Muslim countries constituting 
one Islamic State extending from Constantinople down to Lahore, 
A Mussalman must be really very stupid if he is not attracted by the 
glamour of this new destiny and be completely transformed in his 
view of the place of Muslims in the Indian cosmos. 

* Hir Mahommad Iqbal strongly condemned nationalism in Mussalmans of any notr* 
Muslim country including Indian Mussulmans in the sense of an attachment to the mother 

334 PAKISTAN Atft) ^THE MAL.AIS& [part lV 

So obvious is the destiny that it is somewhat surprising that 
the Muslims should have taken so long to own it up. There is 
evidence that some of them knew this to be the ultimate destiny of the 
Muslims as early as 1923. In support of this reference may be 
made to the evidence of Khan Saheb Sardar M. Gulkhan who 
appeared as a witness before the North- West Frontier Committee 
appointed in that year by the Government of India under the 
Chairmanship of Sir Dennis Bray, to report upon the administrative 
relationship between the Settled Districts of the N. W. F. Province 
and the Tribal Area and upon the amalgamation of the Settled 
Districts with the Punjab. The importance of his evidence was not 
realized by any member of the Committee except Mr. N. M. Samarth 
who was the one member who drew pointed attention to it in his 
Minority Report. Extract from his Report illuminates a dark 
corner in history of the evolution of this new destiny. Says 
Mr. Samarth : 

" There was not before the Committee another witness who could 
claim to spe^ik with the authority of personal knowledge and 
experience of not only the North-West Frontier Province and 
Independent Territory but Baluchistan, Persia and Afghanistan, which 
this witness could justly lay claim to. It is noteworthy that he 
appeared before the Committee as a witness in his capacity as 
"President, Islamic Anjuman, Dera Ismail Khan." This witness 
(Khan Saheb SarJar Muhammad Gul Khan) was asked by me : "Now 
suppose the Civil Government of the Frontier Province is so modelled 
as to be on the same basis as in Sind, then this Province will be part 
and parcel of the Punjab as Sind is of the Bombay Presidenc}*. What 
have you to say to it ? '" He gave me, in the course of his reply, 
the following straight answer : "As far as Islam is concerned and the 
Mahomedan idea of the League of Nations goes, I am against it." On 
this answer, I asked him some further questions to which he gave 
me frank, outspoken replies without mincing matters. I extract the 
pertinent portions below : 

"Q. The idea at the back of your Anjuman is the Pan-Islamic idea 
which is that Islam is a League of Nations and as such amalgamating 
this Province with the Punjab will be detrimental, will be prejudicial, 
to that idea. That is the dominant idea at the back of those who 
think with you ? Is it so ? 

* Report of the North* West Frontier Inquiry Committee 1924 pages 122-23. 


A. It is so, but 1 have to add something. Their idea is that the 
Hindu-Moslem Unity will never become a fact, it will never become 
a faith accompli, and they think that this Province should remain 
separate and a link between Islam and Brittanic Commonwealth. 
In fact, when I am asked what my opinion is I, as a member of 
the Anjuman, am expressing his opinion we would very much 
rather see the separation of the Hindus and Muhammadans, 23 crores 
of Hindus to the South and 8 crores of Muslims to the North. Give 
the whole portion from Raskumari* to Agra to Hindus and from 
Agra to Peshawar to Muhammadans, I mean trans-migration from 
one place to the other. This is an idea of exchange. It is not an 
idea of annihilation. Bolshevism at present does away With the 
possession of private property. It nationalizes the whole thing and 
this is an ide.i which of course appertains to only exchange. This is 
of course impracticable. But if it were practicable, we would rather 
want this than the other. 

Q. That is the dominant idea which compels you not to have 
amalgamation with the Punjab ? A Exactly. 

Q. When you referred to the Islamic League of Nations, I believe 
you had the religious side of it more prominently in your mind than 
the political side ? 

A. Of course, political. Anjuman is a political thing. Initially, 
of course, anything Muhammad an is religious, but of course Anjuman 
is a political Association. 

Q. I am not referring to your Anjuman but I am referring to the 
Musalmans. I want to know what the Musalmans think of this 
Islamic League of Nations, what have they most prominently in 
mind, is it the religious side or the political side ? 

A. Islam, as you know, is both i*oligious and political. 

Q. Therefore politics and religion are intermingled ? 
A. Yes, certainly." 

Mr. Samarth used this evidence for the limited purpose of 
showing that to perpetuate a separate Pathan Province by refusing 
to amalgamate the N. W. F. with the Punjab was dangerous in view 

* This is as io the original. It is probably a misprint for K.n,nya Kumari, 


of the Pathan's affiliations with Afghanistan and with other Muslim 
countries outside India. But this evidence also shows that the idea 
underlying the scheme of Pakistan had taken birth sometime before 

In 1924 Mr. Mahommed AH speaking on the Resolution on the 
extension of the Montagu-Chelrnsford Reforms to the N. W. F. 
Province which was moved in the session of the Muslim League held 
in Bombay in that year is said to have suggested* that the 
Mahommedans of the Frontier Province should have the right of 
self-determination to choose between an affiliation with India or 
with Kabul. . He also quoted a certain Englishman who had said 
that if a straight line be drawn from Constantinople to Delhi, it will 
disclose a Mohammedan corridor right up to Shaharanpur. It is 
possible that Mr. Mahommad AH knew the whole scheme of Pakistan 
which came out in the evidence of the witness referred to by 
Mr. Samarth and in an unguarded moment gave out what the 
witness had failed to disclose, namely, the ultimate linking of Pakistan 
to Afghanistan. 

Nothing seems to have been said or done by the Muslims about 
this scheme between 1924 and 1930. The Muslims appear to have 
buried it and conducted negotiations with the Hindus for safeguards, 
as distinguished from partition, on the basis of the traditional one 
nation theory. But in 1930 when the Round Table Conference 
was going on certain Muslims had formed themselves into 
a Committee with head quarters in London for the purpose of getting 
the R. T. C. to entertain the project of Pakistan. Leaflets and 
circulars were issued by the Committee and sent round to members 
of the R. T. C. in support of Pakistan. Even then nobody took 
any interest in it, and even the Muslim members of the R. T. C. did 
not countenance it in any wayf- 

* For reference see I*ala Lajpatrai's Presidential Address bo tbe Hindu Maha Sabha 
session held at Calcutta on llth April 1925 in the Indian Quarterly Register 1925 VoJ. I 
p. 379. 

f Jf opposition to one Common Central Government be taken as a principal feature of 
fcbe scheme of Pakistan then tbe only member of the R. T. C. who may be said to have 
supported it without mentioning ifc by name was Sir Mahommad Iqbal who expressed the 
view at the third session of the R. T. C. that there should be no Contral Govenment for 
India and that tbe provinces should be autonomous and independent dominions in direct 
{Secretary of Stat* IQ 


It is possible that the Muslims in the beginning, thought that this 
destiny was just a dream incapable of realization. It is possible that 
later on when they felt that it could be a reality they did not raise 
any issue about it because they were not sufficiently well organized 
to compel the British as well as the Hindus to agree to it. 
It is of course difficult to explain why the Muslims did not press for 
Pakistan at the R. T. C. Perhaps they knew that the scheme 
would offend* the British and as they had to depend upon them 
for a decision on the 14 points of dispute between them and 
the Hindus, the Musalmans, perfect statesmen as they are and 
knowing full well that politics, as Bismark said, was always the game 
of the possible, preferred to wait and not to show their teeth till they 
had got a decision from the British in their favour on the 14 points 
of dispute. 

There is another explanation of this delay in putting forth the 
scheme of Pakistan. It is far more possible that the Muslim 
leaders did not until very recently know the philosophical justification 
for Pakistan. After all, Pakistan is no small move on the Indian 
political chess-board. It is the biggest move ever taken for it 
involves the disruption of the State. Any Mahommedan if he had 
ventured to come forward to advocate it, was sure to have 
been asked what moral and philosophical justification he had in 
support of so violent a project. The reason why they had not 
so far discovered what the philosophical justification for Pakistan is, 
is equally understandable. The Muslim leaders were, heretofore, 
speaking of the Mussalmans of India as a community or a minority. 
They never spoke of the Muslims as a nation. The distinction 
between a community and a nation is rather thin and even if it is 
otherwise it is not so striking in all cases. Every State is more or 
less a composite State and there is, in most of them, a great diversity of 
populations, of varying languages, religious codes and social traditions, 
forming a congeries of loosely associated groups. No State is ever 
a single society, an inclusive and permeating body of thought and 
action. Such being the case, a group may mistakenly call itself 
a community even when it has in it the elements of being a nation. 
Secondly, as has been pointed out earlier, a people may not be 

* It is said that it was privately discussed with the British authorities who itfere not 
in favour of it. It is possible that the Muslims did not insist on it for fear of incwring their 



possessed of a national consciousness although in every sense of the 
term they are a nation* 

Again from the point of view of minority rights and 
safeguards this differnce is unimportant. Whether the minority is 
a community or a nation both are minorities and the safeguards 
for the protection of a minor nation cannot be very different 
from the safeguards necessary for the protection of a minor 
community. The protection asked for is against the tyranny of the 
majority and once the possibility of such a tyranny of the majority 
over a minority is established it matters very little whether the 
minority driven to ask for safeguards is a community or is a nation* 
Not that there is no distinction between a community and a nation 
or if there is it makes no real difference. The difference indeed is very 
great. It may be summed up by saying that a community, however 
different* from and however opposed to other communities major or 
minor it may be, is one with the rest in the matter of the ultimate 
destiny of all. A nation on the other hand is not only different from 
other components of the State but it believes in and cherishes 
a different destiny totally antagonistic to the destiny entertained by 
other component elements in the State. The difference appears to 
me so profound that speaking for myself I would not hestitate to 
adopt it as a test to distinguish a community from a nation. A people 
who notwithstanding their differences accept a common destiny for 
themselves as well as for their opponents are a community. 
A people who are not only different from the rest but who refuse to 
accept for themselves the same destiny which others do, are 
a nation. It is this difference in the acceptance and non- 
acceptance of a common destiny which alone can explain why the 
Untouchables, the Christians and the Parsis are in relation to the 
Hindus only communities and why the Muslims are a nation. Thus 
from the point of view of harmony in the body politic the difference 
is of the most vital character as the difference is one of ultimate 
destiny. The dynamic charactor of this difference is undeniable. 
If it persists, it cannot but have the effect of rending the State in 
fragments. But so far as safegaurds are concerned, there cannot be 
any radical difference between a minor nation and a minor 
community, where both are prepared to live under one single 

chap, xnj NAtfioNAl FJRUSTRATION 339 

The delay in discovering the philosophical justification for Pakistan 
is due to the fact that the Muslims leaders had become habituated 
to speaking of Muslims as a community and as a minority. The use 
of this terminology took them in a false direction and brought them 
to a dead end. As they acknowledged themselves to be a minority 
community they felt that there was nothing else open to them except 
to ask for safeguards which they did and with which they concerned 
themselves for practically half a century. If it had struck them that 
they need not stop with acknowledging themselves to be a minority 
but that they could proceed further to distinguish a minority which 
is a community from a minority which is a nation they might have 
been led on to the way to discover this philosophical justification 
for Pakistan. In that case Pakistan would have in ail probability 
come much earlier than it has done. 

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Muslims have 
undergone a complete transformation and that the transformation 
is brought about not by any criminal inducement but by the 
discovery of what is their true and ultimate destiny. To some 
this suddenness of the transformation may give a shock. But those 
who have studied the course of Hindu-Moslem politics for the last 
twenty years cannot but admit to a feeling that this transformation, this 
parting of the two was on the way. For the course of Hindu-Muslim 
politics has been marked by a tragic and ominous parallelism. 
The Hindus and Moslems have trodden parallel paths. No doubt 
they went in the same direction. But they never travelled the 
same road. In 1885 the Hindus started the Congress to vindicate 
the political rights of Indians as against the British. The Moslems 
refused to be lured by the Hindus in the Congress posing for and 
speaking in the name of all Indians. Between 1885 to 1906 the 
Muslims kept out of this stream of Hindu politics. In 1906 they felt 
the necessity for the Muslim community taking part in political activity. 
Even then they dug their own separate channel for the flow 
of Muslim political life. The flow was to be controlled by 
a separate political organization called the Muslim League 
Ever since the formation of the Muslim League the waters of Muslim 
politics have flown in this separate channel. The Congress and the 
League have lived apart and have worked apart. Their aims atid 


objects have not always been the same. They have even avoided 
holding their annual sessions at one and the same place, lest the 
shadow of one should fall upon the other. It is not that the 
League and the Congress have not met. The two have met but 
only for negotitations, a few times with success and most times 
without success. They met in 1915 at Lucknow and their efforts were 
crowned with success. In 1925 they met but without success. In 
1928 a section of the Muslims were prepared to meet the Congress. 
Another section refused to meet. It rather preferred to depend 
upon the British. The point is they have met but have never 
merged. Only during the Khilafat agitation did the waters of the 
two channels leave their appointed courses and flow as one stream 
in one channel. It was believed that nothing would separate the 
waters which God was pleased to join. But that hope was belied. 
It was found that there was something in the composition of the two 
waters which would compel their separation. Within a few years of 
their confluence but as soon as the substance of the Khilafat cause 
vanished the water from the one stream reacted violently to the 
presence of the other, as one does to a foreign substance entering one's 
body. Each began to show a tendency to throw out and separate 
from the other. The result was that when the waters did separate they 
did with such impatient velocity and determined violence if 
one can use such language in speaking of water against each other 
that thereafter they have been flowing in channels far deeper and far 
vnore distant from each other than those existing before. Indeed the 
velocity and violence with which the two waters have burst out from 
the pool in which they had temporarily gathered have altered the 
direction in which they were flowing. At one time their direction was 
parallel. Now they are opposite. One is flowing towards the east as 
before. The other has started to flow in the opposite direction 
towards the west. Apart from any possible objection to the particular 
figure of speech, I am sure, it cannot be said that this is a wrong 
reading of the history of Hindu- Moslem politics. If one bears this 
parallelism in mind he will know that there is nothing sudden 
about the transformation. For if the transformation is a revolution 
the parallelism in Hindu-Moslem politics marks the evolution of 
that revolution. That Moslem politics should have run a parallel 
course and should never have merged in the Hindu current of 


politics is a strange fact of modern Indian History. In so seggregating 
themselves the Muslims were influenced by some mysterious feeling 
the source of which they could not define and guided by a hidden 
hand which they could not see but which was all the same directing 
them to keep apart trom Hindus. This mysterious feeling and 
this hidden hand was no other than their pre-appointed destiny, 
symbolized by Pakistan, which, unknown to them, was working 
within them. Thus viewed, there is nothing new or nothing sudden 
in the idea of Pakistan. The only thing that has happened is that, 
what was indistinct appears now in full glow, and what was nameless 
has taken a name. 


Summing up the whole discussion it appears that an integral 
India is incompatible with an independent India or even with 
India as a dominion. On the footing that India is to be one 
integral whole there is a frustration of all her hopes of freedom 
writ large on her future. There is frustration if the national 
destiny is conceived in terms of independence, because the Hindus 
will not follow that path. They have reasons not to follow it. 
They fear that that way lies the establishment of the domination 
of the Muslims over the Hindus. The Hindus see that the Muslim 
move foi independence is not innocent. It is strategy. It is to be 
used only to bring the Hindus out of the protecting shield of the 
British Empire in the open and then by alliance with the neighbouring 
Muslim countries and by their aid subjugate them. For the Muslims 
independence is not the end. It is only a means to establish Muslim 
Raj. There is frustration if the national destiny is conceived 
of in terms of Dominion Status because the Muslims will not 
agree to abide by it. They fear that under Dominion Status the 
Hindus will establish Hindu Raj over them by taking benefit of the 
principle of one man one vote and one vote otie value and that 
however much the benefit of the principle is curtailed by weightage 
to Muslims the result cannot fail to be a Government of the Hindus, 


by the Hindus and therefore for the Hindus. Complete frustration 
of her destiny therefore seems to be the fate of India if it is insisted 
that India shall -remain as one integral whole. 

It is a question to be considered whether integral India 
is an ideal worth fighting for. In the first place even if India 
remained as one integral whole it will never be an organic whole, 
India may in name be continued to to be known as one country 
but in reality it will be two separate countries Pakistan and 
Hindustan joined together by a forced and artificial union. 
This will be specially so under the stress of the two nation 
theory. As it is, the idea of unity has had little hold on the 
Indian world of fact and reality, little charm for the common 
Indian, Hindu or Muslim, whose vision is bounded by the valley 
in which he lives. But it did appeal to the imaginative and 
unsophisticated minds on both sides. The two-nation theory will 
not leave room even for the growth of that sentimental desire for uriity. 
The spread of that virus of dualism in the body politic must some day 
create a mentality which is sure to call for a life and death struggle for 
the dissolution of this forced union. If by reason of some superior 
force the dissolution does not take place, one thing is sure to happen 
to*India namely that this continued union will go on sapping her 
vitality, loosening its cohesion, weakning its hold on the love and 
faith of her people and preventing the use, if not retarding the 
growth, of its moral and material resources. India will be an 
anaemic and sickly state inefective, a living corpse, dead though not 

The second disadvantage of this forced union will be the 
necessity of finding a basis for Hindu-Moslem settlement. 
How difficult it is to reach a settlement no one needs to be told. 
What more can be offered short of dividing India into Pakistan and 
Hindustan to bring about a settlement, than what has aleady 
been conceded without injury to the other interests in the country, 
it is difficult to conceive. But whatever the difficulties be, it 
cannot be gainsaid that if this forced union continues there can 
be no political advance for India unless it is accompanied by 
Communal Settlement. Indeed a Communal Settlement rather an 
international settlement for now and hereafter Hindus and Muslims 


must be treated as two nations will remain under this scheme of 
forced ~un ion [ a condition -precedent for every inch of political 

There will be a third disadvantage of this forced political 
union. It cannot eliminate the presence of a third party. In the first 
place the constitution, if one conies in existence, will be a federation 
of mutually suspicious and unfriendly states. They will of their own 
accord want the presence of a third party to appeal to in cases of 
dispute. For their suspicious and unfriendly relationship towards each 
other will come in the way of the two nations reaching satisfaction 
by the method of negotiation. India will not have in futuie 
even that unity of opposition to the British which used to gladden 
the hearts of so many in the past. For the two nations will be more 
opposed to ^each other than before, ever to become united against the 
British. In the second place the basis of the constitution will be the 
settlement between the Hindus and the Muslims and for the successful 
working of such a constitution the presence of a third party and be 
it noted, with sufficient armed force, will be necessary to see that the 
settlement is not broken. 

All this of course means the frustration of the political destiny 
which both Hindus and Muslims profess to cherish and the 
early consumation of which they so devoutly wish. What else, 
however, can be expected if two warring nations are locked in the 
bosom of one Country and one Constitution ? 

Compare with this dark vista, the vista that opens out if India is 
divided into Pakistan and Hindustan. The partition opens the way 
to a fulfilment of the destiny each may fix for itself. Muslims will be 
free to choose for their Pakistan independence or dominion status 
whatever they think good for themselves. Hindus will be free to 
choose for their Hindustan independence or dominion status, whatever 
they may think wise for their condition. The Muslims will be freed 
from the nightmare of Hindu Raj and Hindus will save themselves 
from the hazard of a Muslim Raj. Thus the path of political progress 
becomes smooth for both. The fear of the object being frustrated gives 
place to the hope of its fulfilment. With Pakistan separated from 
Hindustan, Communal Settlement must remain a necessary 
precedent, if India, as oqe integral whole, desires to piake 


advance. But Pakistan and Hindustan are free from the rigourous 
trammels of such a condition precedent and even if a communal 
settlement with minorities remained to be a condition precedent it will 
not be difficult of fulfilment. The path of each is cleared of this 
obstacle. There is another advantage of Pakistan which must be 
mentioned. It is generally admitted that there does exist a kind of 
antagonism between Hindus and Muslims which if not dissolved 
will prove ruinous to the peace and progress of India. But it is not 
realized that the mischief is caused not so much by the existence of 
mutual antagonism as by the existence of a common theatre for 
its display It is the common theatre which calls this anatonism 
in action. It cannot but be so. When the two are called to 
participate in acts of common concern what else can happen except 
a display of that antagonism which is inherent in them. Now this 
scheme of Pakistan has this advantage, namely, that it leaves no 
theatre for the play of that social antagonism which is the cause 
of disaffection among Hindus and Muslims. There is no fear of 
Hindustan and Pakistan suffering from that disturbance of peace and 
tranquility which has torn and shattered India for so many years. 
Last, but by no means least, is the elemi nation of the necessity 
of a third party to maintain peace. Freed from the trammels which 
one imposes upon the other by reason of this forced union Pakistan 
and Hindustan can each grow into a strong stable State with no 
fear of disruption from within. As two separate entities, they 
can reach respective destinies which as parts of one whole they 
never can. 

Those who want an integral India must note what Mr. Mahomad 
Ali as President of the Congress in 1923 said. Speaking about the 
unity of among Indians Mr. Mahomad Ali said 

" Unless some new force other than the misleading unity of opposition 
unites this vast continent of India it will remain a geographical 

Is there any new force which remains to be harnessed ? All 
other forces having failed the Congress, after it became the Govern- 
ment of the day, saw a new force in the plan of mass contact. 
It w?is intended to produce political unity between Hindu and Muslim 
masses by ignoring or circumventing the leaders of the Muslims. In its 
essence, it was the plan of the British Conservative Party to buy 


Labour with " Tory Gold/* The plan was as mischievous as it was 
futile. The Congress forgot that there are things so precious that 
no owner who knows their value will part with them and any 
attempt to cheat him to part with it is sure to cause resentment and 
bitterness. Political power is the most precious thing in the life of 
a community especially if its position is constantly being challenged 
and is required to maintian it by meeting the challenge. Political 
power is the only means by which it can sustain its position. To 
attempt to make it part with it by false propoganda, by misrepresen- 
tation or by the lure of office or of gold is equivalent to disarming 
the community, to silencing its guns and to making it ineffective 
and servile. It may be a way of producing unity. But the way 
is despicable for it means suppressing the opposition by a false and 
an unfair way. It cannot produce any unity. It can only create 
exasperation, bitterness and hostility*. This is precisely what the 
"mass contact" plan of the Congress did. For there can be no 
doubt that this mad plan of mass contact has had a great deal to do 
with the emergence of Pakistan. 

It might be said that it was unfortunate that mass contact was 
conceived and employed as a political lever and that it might have 
been used as a force for social unity with greater success. But could it 
have succeeded in breaking the social wall which divides the Hindus 
and the Muslims ? It cannot but be a matter of the deepest regret 
to every Indian that there is no social tie to draw them together. 
There is no interdining and no inter marriage bet ween the two. Can 
they be introduced ? Their festivals are different. Can the Hindus 

* So sober a person as Sir Abdur Bahim in his presidential address to the session of the 
Muslim League held in Aligarh on 30th December 1925 gave expression to this bitterness caused 
by Hindu tactics wherein he " deplored the attacks on the Muslim community in the form of 
Shuddhi, Sangathan and Hindu Mahasabha movements and activities led by politicians like 
I,ala IJajpafc Rai and Swami Shradhanand" and said " some of the Hindu leaders had spoken 
publicly of driving out Muslims from India as Spaniards expelled Moors from Spain. 
Mussalmans would be too big a mouthful for their Hindu friends to swallow. Thanks to 
the artificial conditions under which they lived they had to admit that Hindus were in 
a position of great advantage and even the English had learned to dread their venomous 
propoganda. Hindus were equally adept in the art of belittling in every way possible the 
best Muisalmans in public positions excepting only those who had subscribed to the Hindu 
political creed. They had in fact by their provocative and aggressive conduct made it 
clearer than ever to Muslims that the latter could not entrust their fate to Hindus and must 
adopt every possible measure of self-defeqoe." All-India Register 1925 Vol. II page S50 t 



be induced to adept them or join in them ? Their religious notions axe 
not only divergent but repugnant to each other so that on a religious 
platform the entry of the one means the exit of the other. Their 
eulturfcsare different ; their literatures and their histories are different. 
Not only different, they are so distasteful to each other, that they are 
Sure to cause aversion and nausea. Can any one make them drink from 
the same fount of these perrenial sources of life ? No common meeting 
ground exists, None can be cultivated. There is not even sufficient 
physical contact, let alone their sharing a common cultural and 
emotional life. They do not even live together. Hindus and 
Muslim live in a separate world of their own. Hindus live in 
villages and Muslims in towns in those provinces where the 
Hindus are in a majority. Muslims live in villages and Hindus 
in towns in those provinces where the Muslims are in a majority. 
Wherever they live, they live apart. Kvery town, every village 
has its Hindu quarters, and Muslim quarters which are quite 
separate from each other. There is no common continuous 
cycle of participation. They meet to trade or they meet to murder- 
They do not meet to befriend one another. When there 
is no call to trade or when there is no call to murder, they cease to 
meet. When there is peace, the Hindu quarters and the Muslim 
quarters appear^ like two alien settlements. The moment war 
is declared, the settlements become armed camps. The periods 
of peace and the periods of war are brief. But the interval is 
one of continuous tension. What can mass contact do against 
such barriers ? It cannot even get over on the other side of the 
barrier, much less can it produce organic unity. 


Here I propose to stop. For I feel that all that can be sttid about 
the subject has been said. It is true I have not given any finding. 
But I may state that it was never toy intention to give a finding. To 
use legal language my object was to draw the pleadings and to state 
the issues.. This I may claim to have done at sufficient length. In 
doing so I have adopted that prolix style of pleadings so dear to the 
Victorian lawyers, under which the two sides plied one another with 
plea and replication, rejoinder and rebutter, surrejoinder and 
surrebutter and so on. I have done this deliberately with the object of 
letting a full statement of the case for and against Pakistan be made. 
The foregoing pages contain the pleadings. The facts contained 
therein are true to the best to my knowledge and belief. It only 
remains for me to state the issues and to invite Hindus and 
Muslims to give their findings such as they may think correct and well 

It seems to me that the following issues necessarily arise on the 

(1) Is Hindu-Moslem Unity necessary for India's political 
advancement ? If necessary, is it still posdiElef of realization 
notwithstanding the new ideology of Hindus and Muslims 
being two different nations ? 

(2) If Hindu-Moslem Unity is possible should it be 
reached by appeasement or by settlement ? 

(3) If it is to be achieved by appeasement, what are the 
new concessions that can be offered to the Muslims to obtain 
their willing co-operation, without prejudice to other interests ? 

(4) If it is to be achieved by a settlement what are the 
terms of that settlement ? If there are only two alternatives 

(i) Division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan or 

(ii) Fifty-fifty share in Legislature, Executive and the Services 
which alternative is preferable ? 

(5) Whether India, if she remained one integral whole, 
can rely upon both Hindus and Mussalmans to defend her 

assuming it is won from the British ? 


(6) Having regard to ^the prevailing antagonism between 
Hindus and Mussalnaans and having regard to the new 
ideology demarcating them as two distinct nations and 
postulating an opposition in their ultimate destinies, whether 
a single constitution for these two nations can be built in the 
hope that they will show an intention to work it and not 
to stop it ? 

(7) On the assumption that the two- nations theory has 
come to stay, does not India become an incoherent body 
without organic unity, incapable of developing into a strong 
united nation bound by a common faith in a common 
destiny and therefore likely to remain as a feeble and a sickly 
country, easy to be kept in perpetual subjection either of the 
British or of any other foreign power ? 

(8) If India cannot be one united country is it not better 
that Indians should help India in the peaceful dissolution of 
this incoherent whole into its natural parts, namely Pakistan 
and Hindustan ? 

(9) Whether it is not better to provide for the growth 
of two independent and separate nations, a Muslim nation 
inhabiting Pakistan and a Hindu nation inhabiting Hindustan, 
rather than pursue the vain attempt of keeping India as one 
undivided country in the vain hope that Hindus and 
Muslims will some day be one and occupy it as the members 
of one nation and sons of one motherland ? 

Nothing can come in the way of an Indian getting to grips with 
these issues and reaching his own conclusions with the help of 
the material contained in foregoing pages except three things : 
(i) A false sentiment of historical patriotism, (2) a false conception 
of the exclusive ownership of territory and (3) absence of willingness 
to think for himself. Of these obstacles the last is the most 
difficult to get over. Thought is rare all over the world and free 
thought is rarer still. The victories, won in the battles over freedom of 
thought, have not produced free thinking. As Sir Herbert Grierson in 

in his J$$sa<y# and Addresses observes : 

~ *^ 

~ " A * tnach more obvious fact is the almost pathetic readiness of the 
mass of man to accept leadership in things political, intellectual; and 


spiritual. We in educational circles are always declaring that the 
end of education is to teach people to think for themselves. But 
can the majority ever do so ? My experience is that eighty per cent, 
of a class do not want to think for themselves, or are incapable of 
doing so. The man who can does so from the beginning. The 
majority want to be taught what to think, and the practice of 
Communist Russia and Fascist Italy points to the same conclusion. 
Men can and must be taught what to think. So the Catholic Church 
has always taught, and so the Communist and Fascist insist today." 

This is particularly true of the people of India. 
! A great number of Indians being illiterate and uninformed are 
[ incapable of thought. Those who are informed and therefore 
i capable of thought desire to be tanght what to think. By their 
! social affiliations they have become disposed to accept one particular 
Ideology without examination and cannot free themselves from 
a servile submission to that ideology. If they can free themselves 
from this servile mentality then, the other two obstacles, namely 
a false sentiment of historical patriotism and a false conception of 
exclusive ownership of territory, will not come in the way of their 
arriving at right conclusions on the issues which arise. 

A large part of the argument of this book has been addressed 
to the Hindus. There is an obvious reason for this, which would be 
patent to any one. The Hindus are in a majority. Being in majority 
their view point must count. There is not much possibility of 
peaceful solution if no attempt is made to meet their objections, 
rational or sentimental. But there are special reasons which has led 
me to address so large a part of the argument to them which 
may not be quite so obvious to others. I feel that those Hindus who 
are guiding the destinities of their fellows have lost what Carlyle calls 
" the Seeing Eye " and are walking in the glamour of certain vain 
illusions, the consequences of which must, I fear, be terrible for the 

The Hindus will not realize, although it is now a matter of 
experience, that the Hindus and Muslims are neither one in tempara- 
ment,nor in spiritual experience, nor in the desire for political union ; 
and even at the few moments when they approached a kind of cordiality 
their relations were uneasy. Yet the Hindus wfll continue to cherish 

the illusion that notwithstanding this past experience there 
is still left a sufficient stock of broad and real community of 
aim, setrtimeats apd policy to enable Hindus and Muslims to come 

The Hindus will not realize that Mr. Jinnah has engaged 

himself in mobilizing all his forces for battle. Mr. Jinnah was 

never a man for the masses. He distrusted them. To exclude 

them from political power he was always for a high franchise. 

Mr. Jinnah was never known to be a very devout, pious or 

a professing Muslim. Besides kissing the Holy Koran as and 

when he was sworn as an M. L. A, he does not appear to have 

bothered much about its contents or its special tenents. It is 

doubtful if he frequented any Mosque either out of curiosity or 

religious fervour. Mr. Jinnah was never found in the midst of 

Muslim mass congregations, religious or political. To-day. one finds 

a complete change in Mr. Jinnah. He has become a man of the 

masses. He is no longer above them. He is among them. Having 

come among them they have raised him above themselves and call 

him their Qaide-Azam. He has not only become a believer in Islam. 

He is prepared to die for Islam, To-day he knows more of Islam 

than mere Kdlcttna* To-day he goes to the Mosque to here Khufba 

and takes delight in joining the Id congregessional prayers. Dongri 

and Nulbazar once knew Mr .Jinnah by name. To-day they know 

him by his presence. No Muslim meeting in Bombay begins or ends 

without Alla-H>Akabar and Long LiveQaide' Azam. In spite of all 

this the Hindus will not give up the illusion that Pakistan is 

only the fancy of Mr. Jinnah and that it has no support from the 

Muslim masses or other Muslim Leaders. They are hugging to 

this illusion because Sir S. Hayat Khan and Mr. Fazulal Haq are 

n^t openly supporting Mr. Jinnah. As to Mr. Jinnah's mixing 

among the Muslim masses the Hindus are only amused. For they 

see in it nothing but Mr. Jinnah exchanging his reason for the 

.superstition of his followers. 

Wbcri one hears these things from the Hindu camp one 

woaiiera what has iiade the Hindu intellect so weak and so dull. 

/?VlMp:irt toKUutt Haque were 

opppsftd> to tfac lisa Mtftieo of branches of the Muslim League in their 


Provinces when Mr. Jinnah tried to revive it in 1937. Notwitli* 
standing their opposition the branches of the League were 
formed in the Punjab as well as in Bengal and within one year 
both were compelled to join them. It is a case of those 
coming to scoff remaining to pray. No more cogent proof 
seems to be necessary to prove the victory of the League. 
Besides, if they are really opposed to Pakistan it is easy for 
them to denounce it. But so far they have not done so. All 
this is so obvious. Still the Hindus will keep on saying that Muslim 
leaders do not support Mr. Jinnah. In Mr. Jinnah's contact with 
the Muslim masses there is undoubtedly more than a mere exchange 
of reason for superstition. In this Mr. Jinnah has merely followed 
King Henry IV of France -the unhappy father-in-law of the 
English King Charles I. Henry IV was a Huguenot by faith. But 
he did not hesitate to attend mass in a Catholic Church in Paris. 
He believed that to change his Huguenot faith and go to mass was 
an easy price to pay for the powerful support of Paris. As Paris 
became worth a mass to Henry IV, so have Dongri and Nullbazar 
became worth a mass to Mr. Jinnah and for the same reason. 
It is strategy ; it is mobilization. But even if it is viewed as the 
sinking of Mr. Jinnah from reason to superstition he is sinking with 
his ideology which by his very sinking is spreading into all the 
different strata of Muslim Society and is becoming part and parcel 
of its mental make-up. This is as clear as any thing could be. 
But the Hindus will not see it in that light. 

Further the Hindus will not care to understand the implications 
of the European War. To them this war is simply an occasion to put 
forward their national demand. As their demand has failed to draw 
any response they have become cynical in temperament and have 
cultivated that peculiar type of patriotism which spends itself in 
chuckling over British reverses and laughing at the European peoples 
for the mad slaughter which they seem to have made their business. 
It cannot be denied that this war has lessons for those who 
care to note the causes of this commerce in death. Undoubtedly 
they are two and they are distinct, (i) The problem of the 
domination of a race calling itself superior to other races which 
it is pleased to regard as its inferior. (2) The struggle of a minority 


seeking its freedom from the yoke of the majority. The former is 
typified by Germany. Czechoslovakia furnishes an instance of the 
latter. Every Hindu ought to know that these are the very problems 
which they will have to face, before India is free and even after India 
is free. But the Hindus simply will not cease laughing at Europe, 
will not consider that the exercise of the right to present a national 
demand is not the only proper use of this occasion of war and that 
the war throws upon them the far more important duty to know 
if the problems which brought about the war are among those which 
they are heir to and whether they can solve them without the blood 
price that Europe is paying. 

These are the reasons why I have addressed so a large part of the 
argument to the Hindus. A thick and impervious wall of false 
sentiments and false illusions has prevented the Hindu from 
receiving fresh light. It is because of this that I felt the grave 
necessity of applying my batteries. I do not know how far I 
have succeeded in making breeches in the wall to let in light 
in the dark places. I am satisfied that I have done my duty. If the 
Hindus don't do theirs they will be plagued by the very consequences 
for which they are laughing at Europe and they will perish in the 
same way in which Europe is perishing. 


I Punjab Proportion of Muslim Population 

by Districts ... ... 355 

II Bengal Ditto. ... ... 356 

III Assam Ditto. ... ... 357 

IV Sind Ditto. ... ... 358 

V N. W. F. Ditto. ... ... 359 

VI Sind Proportion of Muslim Population to 

Non-Muslim Population in Towns ... 360 

VII N. W. R Ditto. ... ... 361 

VIII Muslim Population in British India ... 362 

IX Muslim Population in Indian States ... 363 

X Proposals for a Congress Muslim Pact at 

the R. T. C. ... ... 364 

XI Communal Award ... ... 366 

XII Supplementary Communal Award ... 373 

XIII Poona Pact ... ... 374 

XIV Communal Representation in Services ... 376 


(1) Hindu and Muslim Area in the Punjab. 

(2) Hindu and Muslim Area in Bengal and Assam. 
(3 ) India as divided into Pakistan and Hindustan. 



tVXeH*~* .^A.*M4 *Mfe 




Districts where Muslims 
are above 50 per cent. 

of Muslims. 

Districts wher 
are below 50 












G u j ar an walla... 





S haiku pur a 













































Jhang 1 








Dera Gazikhan 



Biloch Transfrontier Track. 





. Proportion 
of Muslims. 











...j 44-8 






Districts where Muslims 
are above 50 per cent. 

1. Nadia 

2. Murshidabad .. 

3. Jessore 

4. Rajashahi 

5. Rangpur 

6. Bogra 

7. Pabua 

8. Malda 

9. Dacca 

10. Myinensing 

11. Faridpur 

12. Bakar Gunj 

13. Tippera 

14. Naokhali 

15. Chittagong . . 

of Muslims. 


61-6 1. 

55-5 2. 

62-0 3. 

75-7 ! 4. 

71-0 ! 5. 

83-5 6. 

76-9 | 7. 
54-2 8. 

69*8 ; 9. 













Districts where Muslims 
are below 50 per cent. 




Midnapur . . 



Howrah City 

24 Parian rj ah as 

Dacca Cit3 r 


Calcutta Suburbs 
Khulna . . 


of Musliins. 
















Districts whore Muslims 
are above 50 per cent. 



Actual Districts where Muslims 

rfittS aro below 50 i~ * 

of Muslims. 

59*2 Cachar 


1 Khasi rind Janitia Hills 



Naga Hills 


I Lushi Hills 


Goal para 












Garo Hills 


Ladiya Frontier Tracks 


Balipara Frontier ... 










Thar Parkar 




of Muslims 
to Total. 


of Non- 
to Total. 



































id Frontier 






Total ... 








N. W. F. 






of Muslim 
to Total, 


of Non- 
to Total. 
























1 Khan 






Total ... 









Towns by Districts. 



of Muslims 
to Total. 

Total Non- 

of Non-Mus- 
lims to Total 

,_- . 

- - 


1. Hala 


4,745 64-9 



2. Hyderabad 


27,116 : 29-2 



3. Matiari 

6,692 4,880 




4. Narsapur 




1,510 35-5 

5. Taudo Alahyar 

5,146 1,745 


3,400 j 60- 1 

6. Taudo Maliomecl- 




3,688 j 55-7 




7. Karachi 

247.791 118,412 


129,379 53-1 

8. Ketibuncler . 1,655 



S22 1 49-7 

9. Kotri ... 10^033 



3,975 ! 39*7 

10. Manjiband 2 746 ! 1 53 


1,493 54*4 

11. Tatta ... 9t '635 -V70 

53 -r> 

4,465 46-4 

Larkana. '\ 

12. Bubak ...' ,^002 ' 1,300 


1,702 56-7 

13. Dadu ... 7*328 4,199 57-2 

3,129 42-H 

14. Kambar . M 9,717 6,255 


3,462 37-7 

15. Larkana ..." 26*841 10,945 


15,890 59-2 

16, Rato Dero ...' 7/285 2,582 ;H5'4 

4,703 64-6 

17. Shewan ...I 5,795 3,753 64*7 

2,042 35-3 

Nawabxha. \ 

18. Nawabsha ... 7,023 2,468 \ 35-1 

5,555 <J4'9 

19. Shahadadpur ... 8,847 2,960 33-4 

5,887 6<Hi 

20. Tando Adam ... 13,469 3,204 23*7 

10,265 76-3 



21. Ghotki ... 4^26 1,668 34-5 

3,158 65-5 

22. Oahriyassin ... 7,370 ! 2,971 40'3 

4,409 52-7 

23. Robri 


6.804 40-2 i 



24. Sbikarpur 

62,505 22,654 36-2 



25. Sukkur 


27,642 39-9 . 

41,625 60-1 

Thar Parkar. 

26. Mirpurkhas 


2,769 27-2 



27. Umarkot 






Upper iSind Frontier. 

28. Jaoobabad 









N. W. F. 

Towns by Districts. 



of MusHms 
to Total 


to Tota 

n^ara jMrict. \ 


Abottabad Cantt. ...' 




0,81 r > 80-0 


Abottabad Mimieipl. 












54' S 


Batta N. A. 

7 257 



1 ,848 44*5 






1,240 i 24-3 


Man ah ova 




1,503 j 27-1 


/ . 

Peshawar Murioipl. 




17,547 20-1 


Poshawar Cantt. 




i 17,950 52-2 


Mardari Muniuipl. ... 
Mard an Cantt. 





22 '2 


.Nowshera N T . A. 







Nowshera Cantt. 











1 834 i 7 Ml 






10 i 0-1 





i 309 3*5 


Kisalpur Canti. 
Chorat Cantt. 



i 28-0 

i 5,030 
: 417 



Kolvit nitric.!. 



Kohat Muniuipl. 
Kohat Cantt. 



20, 055 

; SO-0 

! 4,445 20-0 
i 5,517 - r 9-8 




Bannu Cantt. 
Lakki N. A. 

' 5,559 


| 41-8 


j 3,073 

; 00'7 


Hera Imia>l J\7ift.n. 

i j 


Dera Iwrn-iil Khan 


21 ,709 

! 55*2 

1 17,247 j 44 vS 


Dera Ismail Khan 




703 : 55-5 


Kulachi N. A. 
Tank N. A. 



i 72-7 

1 2,310 
; 2,492 





1. Ajmere Merwara 

2. Andaman and Nicobar Islands ... 

3. Assam 

4. British Baluchistan 

5. Bengal 

6. Bihar 

7. Orissa 

8. Chhotta Nagpur 

9. Bombay 

10. Central Provinces 

C. P. 

11. Coorg 

12. Delhi 

13. Madras 

14. N. W. F. 

15. Punjab 

16. Sind 

17. United Provinces 






I Percentage of 
Muslims to 





3 ... 







































206 960 | 


46,740,107 ! 

3,305,937 | 




2,227,303 \ 


13,332,460 1 


48,408,763 | 

2,830,809 , 












66,442,766 ! 






Indian States and Agencies. 



Percentage of 
Muslims to 



Assam States 
Baluchistan States 













Bengal States 





Bihar and Orissa States 










Central India Agency 

' 6,632,790 




Central Provinces States 















Jainmu and Kasmir 





Madras States Agency 





; 1,205,016 



Tr a van core 




Other Madras States 





]S T . W. F. Agencies 
Punjab States 

.! 6,557,302 
.; 46,451 





Punjab States Agency 





Htvjputana Agency 

.I 11,225,712 





.' 109,808 




United Provinces States 

.1 1,206,070 




Western India States Agency 




Total . . 

.; 79,098,008 






Tel. Victoria 2360 Queen's House, 

Telegrams: " Courtlike " London. 57, St. James's Court, 

Buckingham Gate, 

6th October, 1931. 

The following proposals were discussed by Mr, Gandhi and the 
Muslim Delegation at 10 p.m. last night. They are divided into two 
parts the proposals made by the Muslims for safeguarding their rights, 
and the proposals made by Mr. Gandhi regarding the Congrss policy. 
The}" are given herewith as approved by Mr. Gandhi, and placed for 
submission to the Muslim Delegation for their opinion. 


1. In the Punjab and Bengal bare majority of one per cent of 
Mnsalmans, but the question of whether it should be by means of joint 
electorates and reservation of 51 per cent of the whole house, or 
separate electorates with 51 per cent seats in the whole house should 
be referred to the Musalman voters before the new constitution comes 
into force and their verdict should be accepted. 

2. In other provinces where the Musalmans are in a minority 
the present weightage enjoyed by them to continue, but whether 
the seats should be reserved to a joint electorates, or whether they 
sholcl have separte electorates should be determined by the Musalman 
voters by a referendum under the new constitutution, and their verdict 
should be accepted. 

3. That the Musalman representives to the Central Legislature in 
both the houses should be 26 per cent, of the total number of the 

* This document is coming to light for the first time. It embodies the efforts made by 
Mr. Gaudhi at the Second R. T. C. to bring about a communal settlement with the Muslims. 
It was circulated among the Muslim delegates. The author was able to secure a copy 
from a Hindu delegate who was acting with the Muslim Delegates at the R. T. C. 
Mr. Gandhi failed to reach an agreement with the Muslims. All the same the document 
is both interesting and instructive. It reveals the ways and means adopted by Mr. Gandhi 
to reach an agreement with the Muslims. Proposal No. 2 of Mr. Gandhi is very significant. 
It shows that Mr. Gandhi was prepared to give every thing to the Muslims on condition 
that the Muslims agreed to side with him in opposing the claims of the Depressed Classes, 
the Indian Christians and the Anglo-Indians for special representation. Heretofore people 
only knew of the Minorities Pact tendered to the R. T. C. which was decried as being 
anti-national. They did not know that Mr. Gaudhi was also engaged in forgincr a pact the 
object of which was to defeat with the help of the Muslims the just claims of the smaller 


British India representatives, and 7 per cent, at least by convention 
should be Musalmans, out of the quota that may be assigned to Indian 
States, that is to say, one-third of the whole house when taken 

4. That the residuary power should vest in the federating Provinces 
of British India, 

5. That the other points as follows being agreed to : 

1. Sindh. 

2. N. W, F. P. 

3. Services. 

4. Cabinet. 

5. Fundamental rights and safeguards for religion eind culture. 

6. Safeguards against legislation affecting any community. 


1 . That the Franchise should be on the basis of adult suffrage. 

2. No special reservations to any other community save Sikhs and 
Hindu minorities. 

3. The Congress demands : 

A. Complete independence. 

B. Complete control over the defence immediately. 

C. Complete control over external affairs. 

D. Complete control over finance. 

K. Investigation of public debts and other obligations by 
an independent tribunal. 

F. As in the case of a partnership, right of either party to 
terminate it. 




In the statement made by the Prime Minister on ist December 
last on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the close of the second 
session of the Round Table Conference, which was immediately after- 
wards endorsed by both Houses of Parliament, it was made plain 
that if the communities in India were unable to reach a settlement 
acceptable to all parties on the communal questions which the 
Conference had failed to solve His Majesty's Government were 
determined that India's constitutional advance should not on that 
account be frustrated, and that they would remove this obstacle by 
devising and applying themselves a provisional scheme. 

2. On the 1 9th March last His Majesty's Government, having been 
informed that the continued failure of the communities to reach agree- 
ment was blocking the progress of the plans for the framing of a new 
Constitution, stated that they were engaged upon a careful re-examina- 
tion of the difficult and controversial questions which arise. They 
are now satisfied that without a decision of at least some aspects of 
the problems connected with the position of minorities under the new 
Constitution, no further progress can be made with the framing of the 

3. His Majesty's Government have accordingly decided that they 
will include provisions to give effect to the scheme set out below in the 
proposals relating to the Indian Constitution to be laid in due course 
before Parliament. The scope of this scheme is purposely confined to 
the arrangements to be made for the representation of the British 
Indian communities In the Provincial Legislatures, consideration of 
representation in the Legislature at the Centre being deferred for the 
reason given in paragraph 20 below. The decision to limit the scope 
of the scheme implies no failure to realise that the framing of the 
Constitution will necessitate the decision of a number of other 
problems of great importance to minorities, but has been taken in the 
hope that once a pronouncement has been made upon the basic 
questions of method and proportions of representation the communities 
themselves may find it possible to arrive at a modus vivcndi on other 
communal problems, which have not as yet received the examination 
they require. 

4. His Majesty's Government wish it to be most clearly understood 
that they themselves can be no parties to any negotiations which may 

Parliamentary Paper Command 4147 of 1932. Officially it is spoken of as Communal Decision. 


be initiated with a view to the revision of their decision, and will not 
be prepared to give consideration to any representation aimed at 
securing the modification of it which is not suppoited by all the parties 
affected. But they are most desirous to close no door to an agreed 
settlement should such happily be forthcoming. If, therefore, before 
a new Government of India Act has passed into law, they are satisfied 
that the communities who are concerned are mutually agreed upon 
a practicable alternative scheme, either in respect of any one or more 
of the Governors' Provinces or in respect of the whole of the British 
India, they will be prepared to recommend to Parliament that that 
alternative should be substituted for the provisions now outlined. 

5. Seats in the Legislative Councils in the Governors' Provinces, or 
in the Lower House if there is an Upper Chamber, will be allocated as 
shown in the annexed table.* 

6. Election to the seats allotted to Muhammaclan, European and 
Sikh constituencies will be by voters voting in separate communal 
electorates covering between them the whole area of the Province 
(apart from any portions which may in special cases be excluded from 
the electoral area as " backward"). 

Provision will be made in the Constitution itself to empower 

a revision of this electoral arrangement (and the other similar arrange- 
ments mentioned below) after 10 years with the assent of the 
communities affected, for the ascertainment of which suitable, means 
will be devised, 

7. All qualified electors, who are not voters either in a Muhammad an 
Sikh, Indian Christian (see paragraph 10 below), Anglo-Indian 
(see paragraph n below) or European constituency, will be entitled to 
vote in a general constituency. 

8. Seven seats will be reserve;! for Mahrattas in certain selected 
plural member general constituencies in Bombay. 

9. Members of the "depressed classes" qualifie 1 to vote will vote 
in a general constituency. In view of the fact that for a considerable 
period these classes would be unlikely, by this means alone, to secure 
any adequate representation in the Legislature, a number of special 
seats will be assigned to them as shown in the table. These seats 
will be filled by election from special constituencies In which only 
members of the "depressed classes" elector-Lilly qualified will be 
entitled to vote. Any person voting in such a special constituency ' 
will, as stated above, be also entitled to vote in a general constituency. 

' See page 370. 


It is intended that these constituencies should be formed in selected 
areas where the depressed classes are most numerous, and that, 
except in Madras, they should not cover the whole area of the 

In Bengal it seems possible that in some general constituencies 
a majotity of the voters will belong to the Depressed Classes. 
Accordingly, pending further investigation, no number has been fixed 
for the members to be returned from the special Depressed Class 
constituencies in that Province. It is intended to secure that the 
Depressed Classes should obtain not less than 10 seats in the Bengal 

The precise definition in each Province of those who (if clectorally 
qualified) will be entitled to vote in the special Depressed Class 
constituencies has not yet been finally determined. It will be based 
as a rule on the general principles advocated in the Franchise 
Committee's Report. Modification may, however, be found necessary 
in some Provinces in Northern India where the application of the 
general criteria of untouchability might result in a definition unsuitable 
in some respects to the special conditions of the Province. 

His Majesty's Government do not consider that these special 
Depressed Classes constituencies will be required for niDre than 
limited time. They intend that the Constitution shall provide that 
they shall come to an end after 20 years if they have not previously 
been abolished under the general powers of electoral revision referred 
to in paragraph 6. 

TO. Election to the seats allotted to Indian Christians will be by 
voters voting in separate communal electorates. It seems almost 
certain that practical difficulties will, except possibly in Madras, 
prevent the formation of Indian Christian consituencies covering the 
whole area of the Province, and that accordingly special Indian 
Christian constituencies will have to be formed only in one or two 
selected areas in the Province. Indian Christian voters in these areas 
will not vote in a general constituency. Indian Christian voters 
outside these areas will vote in a general constituency. Special 
arrangements may be needed in Bihar and Orissa, where a considera- 
able proportion of the Indian Christian community belong to the 
aboriginal tribes. 

n. Election to the seats allotted to Anglo-Indians will be by 
voters voting in separate communal electorates. It is at present 
intended, subject to investigation of any practical difficulties that may 
arise, that the Anglo-Indian constituencies shall cover the whole area 


of each Province, a postal ballot being employed ; but no final decision 
has yet been reached. 

12. The method of filling the seats assigned for representatives 
from backward areas is still under investigation, and the number of 
seats so assigned should be regarded as provisional pending a final 
decision as to the constitutional arrangements to be made in relation 
to such areas. 

13. His Majesty's Government attach great importance to securing 
that the new Legislatures should contain at least a small number of 
women members. They feel that at the outset this object could not 
be achieved without creating a certain number of seats specially 
allotted to women. They also feel that it is essential that women 
members should not be drawn disproportionately from one community. 
They have been unable to find any system which would avoid this 
risk, and would be consistent with the rest of the scheme for 
representation which they have found it necessary to adopt, except 
that of limiting the electorate for each special women's seat to voters 
from one community.* The special women's seats have accordingly 
been specifically divided, as shown in the table, between the various 
communities. The precise electoral machinery to be employed in 
these special constituencies is still under consideration. 

14. The seats allotted to "Labour" will be filled from non-communal 
constituencies. The electoral arrangements have still to be determined, 
but it is likely that in most Provinces the Labour constituencies will be 
partly trade union and partly special constituencies as recommended 
by the Franchise Committee. 

15. The special seats alloted to Commerce and Industry, Mining 
and Planting will be filled by election through Chambers of Commerce 
and various Associations. The details of the electoral arrangements 
for these seats must await further investigation. 

1 6. The special seats allotted to Landholders will be filled by 
election by special Landholders' constituencies. 

17. The method to be emploj-ecl for election to the University 
seats is still under consideration. 

1 8. His Majesty's Government have found it impossible in deter- 
mining these questions of representation in the Provincial Legis- 
latures to avoid entering into considerable detail. There remains, 
nevertheless, the determination of the constituencies. They intend 
that this task should be undertaken in India as early as possible, 

* Subject to one exception, see note (e) to Table, 



It is possible that in some instances delimitation of constituencies 
might be materially improved by slight variations from the numbers 
of seats now given. His Majesty's Government reserve the right 
to make such slight variations, for such purpose, provided that they 
would not materially affect the essential balance between com- 
munities. No such variations will, however, be made in the case 
of Bengal and Punjab. 

19. The question of the composition of Second Chambers in the 
Provinces has so far received comparatively little attention in the 
constitutional discussions and requires further consideration before 
a decision is reached as to which Provinces shall have a Second 
Chamber or a scheme is drawn up for their composition. 

His Magesty's Government consider that the composition of the 
Upper House in a Province should be such as not to disturb in any 
essential the balance between the communities resulting from the 
composition of the Lower House. 

20. His Majesty's Government do not propose at present to enter 
into the question of the size and composition of the Legislature 
at the Centre, since this involves among other questions that of 
representation of the Indian States which still needs further dis- 
cussion. They will, of course, when considering the composition, 
pay full regard to the claims of all communities for adequate repre- 
sentation therein. 

21. His Majesty's Government have already accepted the principle 
that Sind should be constituted a separate Province, if satisfactory 
means of financing it can be found. As the financial problems 
involved still have to be reviewed in connection with other problems 
of federal finance, His Majesty's Government have thought it preferable 
to include, at this stage, figures for a Legislature for the existing Province 
of Bombay, in addition to the schemes for separate Legislatures 
for Bombay Presidency proper and Sind. 

22. The figures given for Bihar and Orissa relate to the existing 
Province. The question of constituting a separate Province of Orissa 
is still under investigation. 

23. The inclusion in the table of figures relating to a Legislature 
for the Central Provinces including Berar does not imply that any 
decision has yet been reached regarding the future constitutional 
position of Berar. 


4th August, 1932. 




2 g g 50 2 




j s 

: < oo cao co co ^< CS 

03 O- 



6 -"2" 


P-( r-* CM ft ft I i 1 

X >. 

a *53 D* 


> OQ 





^cg 4 

SO CO O CO ^3, -t> CO 



33 '"O O 08 43 


CO 00 Ci CO r-i >^ f& 


J5 a J>i o bo 


cC ^ 05 .5 


O C3 

CO '^ < <T1 1 ai r-H 

V. ' 

L S. 



. _ , .. 


6 J3 

r-H a 


b0 ^ 

rM ^i ^ c5 Q ' ' p ~ l *~ < r ~ < 



.S <=* 



t "a* 



IS'^ ! 

os - co <n <?\ o-i CM o 

.2 P 



"I =1 S S" .5? S? .S? 


o j 


g^ 1 S J 1 S^ 1 S J 1 Sl 1 $jj> 1 3 


2 ** -S ^-i .S .5 .2 



. ^ ' r ~ l r ~~ * x ^- - 4 -^T 1 ! . ^ 1 -^_^- 




-^ ; 

o o o o rM^no o 



cc ; 

"5 te 

a ^ 





s "^S . ' 

I|1! . 

^H i-H O 00 fH 


t-r-- : 




JR ' 

00 -^ <M l^ 







- - 1 

ag_^.a, .a<D ao a3 .22 .S 10 


a i 



2:^5 a ^^s a TS a g^^a c^^ 8 o^s t-'S 3 

J2c3o ^So o s 2 = ;JP S^ g ^j3 
"3 fcfc 05^ * oo -g ^ "o^ o g^ gP 
.S^o .2^.^ . -^ .2,^ S.w .2^co. 

bo C3 

" .2 "^* 

'o ^ C? O -T7 


.2 S .S ^ 


: : ">J : O cS 


S ncs f^ bo 
^ ^ o -3J3 

1 11 1 1 I 1 Jl 

j3 PQ W t^ PH PQ O 











.S a 

O w 







oo o5 

~g tf 

8 "S 

^2 ^o 

s g 

's i 

^=3 a 



n^ o 

CL. 23 


< ^ 

(--1 OJ 



* fe 

T3 Q- 

05 05 


^ *^ 




fe *-< 

a> ^ 

1-^3 g 

*0 Q, 

fe *-* 



13 S 

*-i a 



-:-; flp 



^^ ^C3 


- o 

05 -** 






3 <3 - > 


> ^ 

^ ^ 


^ s 





*S Js 












" Then there was the question of the representation of communities 
in the Centre, particularly of the Moslem community. There, 
I think, I can say, definitely I think I have said it indirectly very 
often before-; that the Government consider that the Moslem 
community should have a representation 33 J per cent, in the Federal 
Centre. As far as Indian India is concerned that must be a matter 
for arrangement between the communities affected and the princes, 
but, so far as the British Government has any part in the question 
we will, at any time, give our good offices to making it as easy as 
possible for the arrangement between those parties with regard to the 
future allocation of seats. 

* The Communal Award of Hia Majesty's Government (Appendix XI) did not give any 
decision regarding th Muslim claim for 33J per cent, representation in the Central 
Government. The decision of His Majesty's Government on this claim was announced 
by the Secretary of State for India on 2ith December 1932 in the course of his statement 
to the Third Round Table Conference. 




(1) There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of 
the general electorate seats in the Provincial Legislatures as follows : 

Madras 30 : Bombay with Sind 15 ; Punjab 8 ; Bihar and Orissa 18 ; 
Central Provinces 20 ; Assam 7 ; Bengal 30 ; United Provinces 20 ; 
Total 148. 

These figures are based on the total strength of the Provincial 
Councils, announced in the Prime Minister's decision. 

(2) Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, 
however, to the following procedure : 

All the members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general 
electoral roll in a constituency will form an electoral college, which 
will elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed 
Classes for each of such reserved seats, by the method of the single 
vote ; the four persons getting the highest number of votes in such 
primary election, shall be candidates for election by the general 

(3) Representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legis- 
lature shall likewise be on the principal of joint electorates and 
reserved seats by the method of primary election in the manner 
provided for in Clause two above, for their representation in the 
Provincial Legislatures. 

(4) In the Central Legislatures, eighteen per cent of the seats 
allotted to the general electorate for British India in the said legis- 
lature shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes. 

(5) The system of primary election to a panel of candidates for 
election to the Central and Provincial Legislatures, as hereinbefore 
mentioned, shall come to an end after the first ten years, unless 
terminated sooner by mutual agreement under the provision of 
Clause six below. 

(6) The system of representation of the Depressed Classes by 
reserved seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided 
for in Clauses i and 4 shall continue until determined by mutual 
agreement between the communities concerned in the settlement. 

(7) Franchise for the Central and Provincial Legislatures for the 
Depressed Classes shall he as indicated in the Lothian Committee 

* Signed on 25th September 1982. 


(8) There shall be no disabilities attaching to any one on the ground 
of his being a member of the Depressed Classes in regard to any 
elections to local bodies or appointment to the Public Services, 
Every endeavour shall be made to secure fair representation of the 
Depressed Classes in these respects, subject to such educational 
qualifications as may be laid down for appointment to the Public 

(9) In every province out of the educational grant, an adequate 
sum shall be earmarked for providing educational facilities to the 
members of the Depressed Classes. 



Communal Representation in Services. 

the 4th July 1934. 

Section I General. 

No. F. I4/I7-B./33, In accordance with undertakings given in 
the Legislative Assembly the Government of India have carefully 
reviewed the results of the policy followed since 1925 of reserving 
a certain percentage of direct appointments to Government service for 
the redress of communal inequalities. It has been represented that 
though this policy was adoptel mainly with the object of securing 
increased representation for Muslims in the public services, it has 
failed to secure for them their due share of appointments and it has 
been contended that this position cannot be remedied unless a fixed 
percentage of vacancies is reserved for Muslims. In particular, 
attention has been drawn to the small number of Muslims in the 
Railway services, even on those railways which run through areas in 
which Muslims form a high percentage of the total population. 

The review of the position has shown that these complaints are 
justified, and the Government of India are satisfied by the enquiries 
they have made that the instructions regarding recruitment must be 
revised with a view to improving the position of Muslims in the 

2. In considering this general question the Government of India 
have also to take into account the claims of Anglo-Indians and 
Domiciled Europeans and of the depressed classes. Anglo-Indians 
have always held a large percentage of appointments in certain 
branches of the public service and it has been recognised that in view 
of the degree to which the community has been dependent on this 
employment steps must be taken to prevent in the new conditions 
anything in the nature of a rapid displacement of Anglo-Indians from 
their existing positions, which might occasion a violent dislocation of 
the economic structure of the community. The instructions which 
follow in regard to the employment of Anglo-Indians and Domiciled 
Europeans in certain departments are designed to give effect to this 

* Gasetts of India Part I July 7, 1934, 


3. In regard to the depressed classes it is common ground that 
all reasonable steps sfyoul i be taHeh to secure for them a fair cfo^r^e of 
representation in the public services. The intention of caste Hindus 
in this respect was formally stated in the Poona Agreement of 1932 
and His Majesty's Government in accepting that agreement took due 
note of this point. In the present state of general education in these 
classes the Government of India consider that no useful purpose will 
be served by reserving for them a definite percentage of vacancies out 
of the number available for Hindus as a whole, but they hope to ensure 
that duly qualified candidates from the depressed classes are not 
deprived of fair opportunities of appointment merely because they 
cannot succeed in open competition 

4. The Government of India have also considered carefully the 
position of minority communities other than those mentioned above 
and aie satisfied that the new rules will continue to provide for them, 
as at present, a reasonable degree of representation in the services. 

Section II Scope of Rules. 

5. The Government of India propose to prescribe annual returns 
in order to enable them to watch the observance of the rules laid 
down below. 

6. The general rules which the Government of India have with 
the approval of the Secretary of State adopted with the purpose of 
securing these objects are explained below. They relate only to 
direct recruitment and not to recruitment by promotion which will 
continue to be made as at present solely on merit. They apply to the 
Indian Civil Service, the Central Services, Class I and Class II, and 
the Subordinate services under the administrative control of the 
Government of India with the exception of a few services and posts 
for which high technical or special qualifications are required, but 
do not apply to recruitment for these Services in the province of 
Burma. In regard to the Railways, they apply to all posts other 
than those of inferior servants or labourers on the four State-managed 
Railways, and the administrations of the Company- managed railways 
will be asked to adopt similar rules for the services on these railways. 

Section III- Rules for Services recruited on an All-India basis. 

7. (i) For the Indian Civil Service and the Central and Subordi- 
nate services to which recruitment is made on an All-India basis, the 
following rules will be observed : 

(i) 25 percent, of all vacancies to be filled by direct fecrtiit- 

raent of Indians, will be reserved for Muslims and 8 1/3 par 

for other minority communities. 




DP 4ft9_ the? minority communities obtain less than, these 
percentages $ these percentages^ will be -secured to tliern by mean3 Qf 
-nomination ; if, however, Muslims obtain more than their reserved 
percentage -in open competition, no reduction - will be made in the 
percentage reserved for other minorities, while if the other 
tainorities obtain more than their reserved percentage in open 
competition, no reduction will be made in the, percentage 
' ' reserved for Muslims. 

(iii) If members of the other minority communities obtain 
less than their reserved percentage in open competition and if duly 
qualified candidates are not available for- nomination, the residue 
of the 8 1/3 per cent, will be available for Muslims. 

(iv) The percentage of 8 1/3 reserved for the other minorities 
will not be distributed among them in any fixed proportion. 

(v) In all. cases a minimum standard of qualification will be 
imposed and the reservations are subject to this condition. 

(vi) In order to secure fair representation for the depressed 

classes .duly qualified members of these classes may be nominated 

.to a public service, even though recruitment to that .service is 

being made by ^competition. Members of these classes, if appointed 

by nomination, will not count against the percentages reserved in 

accordance with clause (i) above. 

(2), For the reasons given in paragraph 2 of this Resolution, the 
Government of India have paid special attention to the question of 
Anglo-Indians and Domicile 1 Europeans in the gazetted posts -on the 
Railways for which recruitment is m:i le on an All-India basis. 
In order to -maintain approximately their present representation in 
these posts the Anglo-Indian and Domiciled community will require 

to "obtain" about o per "cent, of the ' total vacancies available to 

--, " . f- , ^ * ^ .. 

membejs of Indian communities. The Government* of India have 
satisfied themselves that at present "the comrrfumty is^ obtaining by 
promotions to these gazetted posts and. by direct recruiment ; to them 

more than. 9 per cent, of these vacancies* In these^ circumstances. 

** , ' ; r ' * , ^ ~i * 

it_has been decided that no special reservation" is at, present required. 
If and when the community is " shown to" fi^e " [receiving/ less t lhan V 
9 jpe c^nt^ of the vacancies* it will be corisFJered what" adjustments' * 
in jegjuc4 ^6 djrect recruitment, .may tt?. re^ujfeJtJJt^^'srfe^^rd their 
legiitimate interests. 


*^."-?: ,-:'.- :.* ??.9. t 9 n : ?: v "rRp! es / or Services 
" (3) In the case of all services to which 
"local areas arid not on an All-India basis, e.g.,. sub' 
the Railways, posts and Telegraphs Department, Cu^ 
Income-tax Department, etc., the general rules prescribed 
apply subject to the following modifications : 

(1) The total reservation for India as a whole of 25 per cent* 
for Muslims and of 8 1/3 per cent, for other minorities will be 
obtained by fixing a percentage for each Railway or local area or 
circle having regard to the population ratio of Muslims and other 
minor itiy communities in the area and the rules for recruitment 
adopted by the local Government of the area concerned ; 

(2) In the case of the Railways and Posts and Telegraphs 
Department an:! Customs Service in which the Anglo-Indian and 
Domiciled European community is at present principally employed 
special provisions described in the next paragraph are required in 
order to give effect to the policy stated in paragraph 2 above. 

9. (i) (a) The Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European community 
at present holds 8.8 per cent, of the subordinate posts on the railways. 
To safeguard their position 8 per cent, of all vacancies to be filled 
by direct recruitment will be reserved for members of this community. 
This total percentage will be obtained by fixing a separate percentage 
(i) for each railway having regard to the number of members of this 
community at present employed, (ii) for each branch or department 
of the Railway service, so as to ensure that Anglo-Indians continue to 
be employed in those branches in which they are at present principally 
employed, e.g., the Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering and 
Traffic Departments. No posts in the higher grades of the subordinate 
posts will be reserved, and promotion to these grades will be made, 
as at present solely, on, merit. 

(b) the reservation, of 2.5 per cent; for Muslims and 8 per cent for 
Anglo-Indians makes it necessary to increase the reservation of 
33i P 61 " cent, hitherto, adopted for all ^minority communities, in order 
to safeguard the interests of minorities other than Muslims and 
Anglo-Indians. It has been decided, therefore, to reserve for them 
6 per cent, of vacancies filled by direct recruitment, which is 
approximately the percentage of posts held by members of these 
communities at present. This total reservation will be obtained in 
the manner prescribed in paragraph 8 (i) of this Resolution and will 
not be further sub-divided among the minority communities. 

In th4 fj^ts and Telegraphs EtepartHwnt the same principles 
be follo^ce^ as in the case of the Railways for safeguarding the 
interests oQthp Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European community 
nt holds about 2*2 per cent, of all subordinate posts. 


ascertained that if a reservation is made for this 
community of 5 per cent, of the vacancies in the branches, departments 
or categories which members of this community may reasonably be 
eXp&cled to enter, it will result in secui ing for them a percentage 
equal to slightly less than the percentage of subordinate posts which 
they at present hold. In the departments or branches in which 
a special reservation is made for Anglo-Indians the reservation of 
vacancies for other minorities will be fixed so as to be equal appro- 
ximately to the percentage of subordinate posts at present held by 
them. The total reservation for Anglo-Indians and other minority 
communities, other than Muslims, will in any case be not less than 
8 per cent. 

(3) Anglo-Indians are at present largely employed in subordinate 
posts hi the Appraising Department and in the Superior Preventive 
Service at the major ports. For the former department special 
technical qualifications are required, and in accordance with the 
general principles indicated in paragraph 6 of this Resolution it will 
be excluded from the operation of these rules. In the Preventive 
Service special qualifications are required, and the present system of 
recruitment whereby posts are reserved for Anglo-Indians will be 

ORDER. Ordarei that this Resolution be communicated to aR 
Local Government and Administrations and the several 

of the Government of India, for information (and guidance) and that 
it bd alsa published in the Gazette of India* 

M. G. Haftett, 
Secretary to the Govermnent of